Why ... (2)

[Smidlee]

And where have you shown that this interpretation is wrong?




We also know that the wings of bats are nothing like the wings of birds, insects, or fish. The wings of the bat are a lineage specific adaptation, just as the theory of evolution predicts.

after the fact.

We already know that life falls into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution. We keep finding new living species, btw. We are also finding new fossil species. All of them keep matching these predictions. All of them. All of the facts support the theory of evolution.

that because all data if forced to fit the theory and no the other way around. I ead a few scientist who is honest enough to admit this.

We observe natural selection occuring, unlike deities magically poofing species into being.

Why would God have to use magic when we can create stuff without magic? we observe NS occuring is not the same as we saw a reptile grow boobs and long hair by NS.

 

[Loudmouth]

after the fact.

New fossil species are found all of the time. New living species are found all of the time as well.

that because all data if forced to fit the theory and no the other way around.

Prove it. If you are going to accuse scientists of fraud at least have the guts to support your accusations.

Why would God have to use magic when we can create stuff without magic?

Then how did God do it? Tell us.

we observe NS occuring is not the same as we saw a reptile grow boobs and long hair by NS.

It is the same thing.

 

[rikerjoe]

that because all data if forced to fit the theory and no the other way around. I ead a few scientist who is honest enough to admit this.

Since the incentive is to do the opposite, what reason would anyone have to "force it to fit the theory"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So the Christian narrative says that all life came about through the natural process of evolution from a single universal common ancestor?

I don't know. It is possible. What we do know and all we know is that life followed a certain sequence of emergence. First we see plants, trees and so forth. Then life swarms in the sea and birds. Then we see land animals including mammals. These were created after their kind. This means there was something of their kind prior to them. The narrative says that every time a creation event occurs.

Or are you once again using the same failed argument that separate creations will just appear to have evolved, just like a crime scene only appears as if the suspect left fingerprints and DNA.

You continue to say the same thing and I have repeatedly told you that is not what the Creation Narrative says. Nothing came into existence in a puff of smoke. It clearly says, "And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. However, Man was made in the image of God and does not state after its kind.

But what evidence do you have to back the claim that God was responsible for that beginning?

I have evidence to support my claim. The appearance of design in the universe. The evidence I posted in my post to Davian.

Where is this evidence?

Like I said, in the post to Davian.

No, it is entirely unreasonable that life would fall into a nested hierarchy if different kinds were created separately. It is the most unreasonable argument there is.

Life was created separately. Separate life forms are shown in the nested hierarchy.

Why can't life evolve at different tempos other than slow?

Not according to Darwin.



Convergent evolution is one of the best pieces of evidence against design that there is. Are you sure you want to go down that road? We could start with the duck bill from the bird species and the duck bill from the mammal species. According to you, same designer so we should have the same design. Is that true? Nope.

Those two bills couldn't be less alike. In fact, the platypus bill even has cusped cheek teeth early in development, just like other mammals.

This does nothing to falsify design. That is crazy. God provided the means for life form to adapt..convergent evolution is a way for that to occur. It doesn't match with Darwin's original theory though.

So why the completely different skeletal designs for what is superficially the same bill?

Evolution.

This, and thousands of other examples, is exactly why convergent evolution falsifies the "common designer" argument.

No it doesn't.

Designs stay within evolutionary lineages even when they are superficially similar. Only evolution is able to explain this. Design just can't do it.

That is so immensely ridiculous. God can do what He pleases and did. He made a way that we could learn and study our past with pattern and purpose. It is exactly what God did.

Really? So the platypus and the duck evolved the same feature through horizontal evolution? Oh, that's right . . . they didn't. Perhaps you should learn some biology before making such grandiose claims.

Oh my gosh! You bring in the platypus and duck and then claim I did, and that I claimed horizontal evolution was the reason.. what is going on with you?

Just as a forensic scientist comes in behind God to find the fingerprints he plants at crime scenes?

:o

It is exactly the pattern we should see if evolution occurred, not design.

IT is exactly what we would see if God designed life forms with the ability to adapt and evolve within the circumstances they find themselves in.

I already have the observed mechanisms. I have the evidence. You don't. No one has ever seen a supernatural deity creating anything. However, we do see the mechanisms of evolution producing a nested hierarchy

You can continue your mantra of nested hierarchy, nested hierarchy, nested hierarchy until you are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. You are coming behind God and finding how He created, He created life forms to evolve. Evolution is what we call it. He called it creation.

Do you find that to be a compelling argument for the existence of Thor?

As with any religion or god one must determine the evidence and see where it leads. I do not find there is evidence to support Thor.

I contend that the cereal Lucky Charms is evidence for Leprechauns. Are you further convinced by this argument?

You can continue to ignore the real evidence, but it is due to denial rather than logic.

 

[lasthero]

Life was created separately. Separate life forms are shown in the nested hierarchy.

When did this happen?

 

[Oncedeceived]

When did this happen?

From the start? Remember there are distinct groups of living things. Mammals are always mammals, birds are always birds and so on and so on. We can go back clear to the first three domains. They are separate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From the start? Remember there are distinct groups of living things. Mammals are always mammals, birds are always birds and so on and so on. We can go back clear to the first three domains. They are separate.

How do you know the first created organisms were a pair of mammals, a pair of birds, etc? How do you know God didn't make a pair of platypuses, a pair of swallows, etc? How do you know he didn't make a pair of placentals, a pair of monotremes? How do you know he didn't make a pair of animals, a pair of plants, etc?

That is, why truncate at the 'clade' taxon?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If evolution is not true then we should see tons and tons of violations of the nested hierarchy, and they should be so obvious as to be unavoidable. We don't see that.

Who said evolution wasn't true?

I see a lot of claims, but no studies to back it up.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Are you saying that all life evolved from a single, universal common ancestor. If not, then you are not agreeing with me. Quit pretending that you are agreeing with me.

I am not pretending anything. I don't know if there is a universal common ancestor and neither do you. It may be true, but we don't have the evidence for it. We have supportive evidence as you have repeatedly supplied. Supportive evidence.

Why does this necessitate a nested hierarchy? Why couldn't God create an animal with teats and feathers that has the ability to adapt and evolve in the circumstances they find themselves in? Are you saying God is incapable of doing this?

I am saying He didn't do it. You are seeing in the evidence that He didn't do it.

Did you search the entire fossil record, and then make sure that all specieds that have ever existed were part of that fossil record? If not, your argument means nothing.

What it means exactly what I am saying. In ToE there should be evidence that the life forms in the Cambrian have precursors in the pre-cambrain leading up to the ones there. Sure there could be fossils uncovered later, but there are none now. The point I am making and have been trying to make is that you have areas in your position that are not in evidence, they are not empirically proven. So your claim that you do not believe anything that can not be empirically proven is falsified.

The DNA evidence is so overwhelmingly supportive of the theory of evolution that fossils are just icing on the cake. Your singular focus on fossils is very close minded and short sighted.

Close minded to what and short sighted in what way. I am simply pointing out the areas in your worldview that are not empirically proven and that you believe without that oh so important empirically proven criteria you demand of others.

It is not necessary that we should have found them after searching such a tiny, tiny fraction of the fossil record, nor is it necessary that these common ancestors ever fossilized to begin with. We are talking about the theory of evolution, not the theory of fossilization.

True, but if one claims that nothing can be proven unless there is empirical evidence to prove it, you are not adhering to your own requirements.

You need to support this argument with evidence.

Why, you demand evidence from me that you do not require of yourself.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's what you need to understand.

Oh I do. In fact, that is the whole point to all of this. You can allow that in your own worldview but deny that in mine. The only reason you dismiss my supportive evidence to the existence of God is your inability to accept God at all. It is not that you really find my supportive evidence lacking in reason, it is that you can not allow it. If you even allow that anything I say is reasonable and logical, you might have to allow that God perhaps does exist. You will not and can not do that.

Finding that you accept areas that are empirically unproven in your worldview should make you understand that you accept only those things you want and can accept. These are your presuppositions. I have them as well. My base presupposition is that God exists. We are both working from our base of presuppositions in our worldviews which is the main contention, not the evidence or lack thereof. It is your view that there is no God and mine is that there is. You will not accept God, so you will not accept anything that I might present to support that there is. Do you see what I am getting at now?

So then we move from the evidence and lack thereof in each worldview and decided which best fits the reality of our universe. That is the point of the exercise.

The pyramids do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

I never claimed they did.

The elements do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Minerals do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Planets do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Aren't we able to learn about these things? Why would separately created kinds need to fall into a nested hierarchy in order for us to learn abou them?

What are separately created kinds? Tell me, what are they. What does that mean to you?

What other ludicrous reasons are you going to come up with?

It is only ludicrous because you are not allowing yourself to think. You are resting on preconceived ideas about creation and not allowing for anything else to sink in.

We have fossil evidence for Cambrian life forms. We have their fossils. What are you talking about?

I didn't say we didn't? Oh, this did come out wrong. I meant that there are no precursors for most if not all of the Cambrian life forms. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Since when?

Since we first discovered fossils? When a new fossil comes in and changes the timeline.

Design units are shared between car models, and this distribution of design features violates a nested hierarchy. Cars are not nested, just as we would expect from intelligent design. I can find the same tires on a Ford Focus and a Chevy Malibu, and yet find two different types of tires on two different Chevy Malibus.

They all have tires. We don't see square tires anywhere in the evolution of the tire. We don't see oblong tires. We don't see triangular tires. Don't you think that if intelligent design was behind the tire that we would see all kinds of tires. Why would design make all tires with the same design?????

Sound familiar?

This is just one example, but there are literally millions that I could find. This isn't even getting into the vehicle transitionals where we have a half car/half airplane, half car/half boat, and a half airplane/half boat. We could also talk about such things as air bags that start in one car lineage, and then immediately migrate their way into all car lineages in a clear violation of a nested hierarchy.

Well how many transitionals do we have in evolution? Out of all the millions and millions of life forms? You aren't making a very convincing case for yourself here.

Do you need more examples?

I think you are doing great if you want to support my position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you know the first created organisms were a pair of mammals, a pair of birds, etc? How do you know God didn't make a pair of platypuses, a pair of swallows, etc? How do you know he didn't make a pair of placentals, a pair of monotremes? How do you know he didn't make a pair of animals, a pair of plants, etc?

That is, why truncate at the 'clade' taxon?

Sorry WC I am not sure what you are asking?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry WC I am not sure what you are asking?

I'm asking why you think that God created a single pair of creatures, Mammal 1 and Mammal 2, from whom all modern mammals are descended (he also made Bird 1 and Bird 2, from whom all modern birds are descended, and Reptile 1 and Reptile 2, and Fish 1 and Fish 2, etc).

That is, in your mind, the history of modern species looks like the Creationist's Orchard:

In the upper image, you see the old-school Creationists' view: God created the species, and little has changed (note that time and descendants proceed vertically).

In the middle image, you see the evolutionary view: a single organism from whom all others are descended.

In the lower image, you see the modern Creationists' view: God created a set of species, which have since diversified and split.

You, it seems, adhere to the third view: God made a number of species, and these species have since diversified and speciated. The original species were Mammal, Bird, Reptile, Fish, Tree, Grass, etc, and since Genesis 1 the Mammal species has diversified into badger, cat, dog, etc.

So my question is why you believe that Mammal was the first species (alongside Bird, etc)? Why do you believe that all mammals are descended from a common ancestor, but that the sparrow and the badger are in distinct kinds? By what method did you determine that God created the original Mammal, from whom all modern mammals are descended?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know. It is possible. What we do know and all we know is that life followed a certain sequence of emergence. First we see plants, trees and so forth. Then life swarms in the sea and birds.

That is not what we see. We see that life swarms in the seas before there is any life on land, plants or otherwise.

These were created after their kind. This means there was something of their kind prior to them.

Where does the Bible say that when the kinds were created that there was something of their kind prior to them?

You continue to say the same thing and I have repeatedly told you that is not what the Creation Narrative says. Nothing came into existence in a puff of smoke.

Then how did they come about?

It clearly says, "And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. However, Man was made in the image of God and does not state after its kind.

Where does it say that birds share a common ancestor with all other life? Where does it say that birds came from dinosaurs that didn't have wings?

I have evidence to support my claim. The appearance of design in the universe.

Where did you show that this design was produced by a deity?

Life was created separately. Separate life forms are shown in the nested hierarchy.

Life forms in a nested hierarchy are not separate. They are joined together by a common ancestor.

Not according to Darwin.

Science has moved forward in the last 150 years. Why can't evolution move by more than one tempo?

This does nothing to falsify design. That is crazy. God provided the means for life form to adapt..convergent evolution is a way for that to occur. It doesn't match with Darwin's original theory though.

A nested hierarchy does falsify design, as has already been shown.

That is so immensely ridiculous. God can do what He pleases and did. He made a way that we could learn and study our past with pattern and purpose. It is exactly what God did.

Why do we need a pattern? We can study planets even though they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. We can study minerals and rocks even though they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Why would life need to fall into a nested hierarchy in order for us to study life? That makes zero sense.

Oh my gosh! You bring in the platypus and duck and then claim I did, and that I claimed horizontal evolution was the reason.. what is going on with you?

What is going on with you. I am citing it as an example of convergent evolution which you think somehow falsifies evolution, which is ludicrous. I am showing how convergent evolution is one of the best pieces of evidence that falsifies design.

IT is exactly what we would see if God designed life forms with the ability to adapt and evolve within the circumstances they find themselves in.

Why? Why does the ability to adapt and evolve require separately created kinds to fall into a nested hierarchy?

You can continue your mantra of nested hierarchy, nested hierarchy, nested hierarchy until you are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. You are coming behind God and finding how He created, He created life forms to evolve. Evolution is what we call it. He called it creation.

Just like the forensic scientist is coming in behind God after he has already planted fingerprints at the crime scene, right?

As with any religion or god one must determine the evidence and see where it leads. I do not find there is evidence to support Thor.
You can continue to ignore the real evidence, but it is due to denial rather than logic.

I have supplied as much evidence for Thor as you have for God.

 

[OllieFranz]

Wiccan --

It is my understanding that Oncedecieved is not opposed to the idea of common ancestry; she just isn't convinced it has been proven. And on a philisophical level, she has a point. There is no way to disprove Last Thursdayism. There is no way to prove that the world did not come into existence Sept 26, 2013, and all of our memories and all the physical evidence were planted to appear to bear out a longer history. For her, it is more than a philosophical exercise, though. I'm unclear about just what it is, however.

In any case, she is not wed to the idea that any taxonomic level corresponds to kind, just to the idea that it is possible that a common ancestor may be an unreachable goal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who said evolution wasn't true?

You did when you said that life was designed and created separately.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Skunks fall into a monophyletic group. What is your purpose in pointing this out?

I am not pretending anything. I don't know if there is a universal common ancestor and neither do you.

Then why do you keep claiming that life was designed and created separately? Also, I do have the evidence that all life shares a common ancestor.

It may be true, but we don't have the evidence for it. We have supportive evidence as you have repeatedly supplied. Supportive evidence.

Supportive evidence is evidence. That's how it works.

I am saying He didn't do it. You are seeing in the evidence that He didn't do it.

Why is a nested hierarchy necessary?

What it means exactly what I am saying. In ToE there should be evidence that the life forms in the Cambrian have precursors in the pre-cambrain leading up to the ones there.

That is false. The theory of evolution says nothing about the chances of specific species being fossilized and surviving in enough numbers to have been found. In fact, Darwin wrote an entire chapter in Origin of Species on why we will always be missing some of these fossils.

. The point I am making and have been trying to make is that you have areas in your position that are not in evidence,

The DNA evidence is overwhelming.

Close minded to what and short sighted in what way.

That you think fossils are the only way to evidence evolution.

I am simply pointing out the areas in your worldview that are not empirically proven and that you believe without that oh so important empirically proven criteria you demand of others.

DNA is the empirical proof (as in "proven beyond a reasonable doubt").

Why, you demand evidence from me that you do not require of yourself.

Baloney. I have both DNA and fossil evidence. What do you have other than claims?

Oh I do. In fact, that is the whole point to all of this. You can allow that in your own worldview but deny that in mine. The only reason you dismiss my supportive evidence to the existence of God is your inability to accept God at all.

Sorry, but evidence that is consistent with normal natural processes is not evidence of God. Never has been.

Finding that you accept areas that are empirically unproven in your worldview should make you understand that you accept only those things you want and can accept. These are your presuppositions.

You are telling me that I have to accept that God exists without any evidence. Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Present the evidence, then I will consider it.

My base presupposition is that God exists. We are both working from our base of presuppositions in our worldviews which is the main contention, not the evidence or lack thereof.

I have no presupposition that God does or doesn't exist. Don't project your presuppositions onto me. Keep them to yourself.

It is your view that there is no God and mine is that there is. You will not accept God, so you will not accept anything that I might present to support that there is. Do you see what I am getting at now?

I see that you are projecting your own close-mindedness onto me. If you present evidence that God exists then I will accept that God exists. I have no presuppositions one way or the other.

What are separately created kinds? Tell me, what are they. What does that mean to you?

Species that do not share a common ancestor. Those are separately created kinds. I have said this multiple times now.

It is only ludicrous because you are not allowing yourself to think. You are resting on preconceived ideas about creation and not allowing for anything else to sink in.

The only preconceived idea is yours. You have admitted that you start with the presupposition that whatever we see God had to create it, no matter what. This leads you to pretend as if God's actions will be indistinguishable from God not acting at all. It leads you to absolutely ludicrous conclusions.

I didn't say we didn't? Oh, this did come out wrong. I meant that there are no precursors for most if not all of the Cambrian life forms. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

How did you determine this? Do you have a time machine?

They all have tires. We don't see square tires anywhere in the evolution of the tire. We don't see oblong tires. We don't see triangular tires. Don't you think that if intelligent design was behind the tire that we would see all kinds of tires. Why would design make all tires with the same design?????

Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

For humans we do see ape-like precursurs. For apes we see monkey-like precursors. For primates we see mammal precursors, and it continues right down the line.

Well how many transitionals do we have in evolution? Out of all the millions and millions of life forms? You aren't making a very convincing case for yourself here.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wiccan --

It is my understanding that Oncedecieved is not opposed to the idea of common ancestry; she just isn't convinced it has been proven. And on a philisophical level, she has a point.

Oncedeceived is starting from the presupposition that life was designed and created separately, no matter what the evidence is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not what we see. We see that life swarms in the seas before there is any life on land, plants or otherwise.

It was thought that there was no way that there were plants or any plant life on early earth or before the swarms in the sea and that has been a problem for the creation narrative, one in which I have conceded and only had hypothesis's to explain it. However, that has just changed.

Early life filled ancient Earth's atmosphere with oxygen, say scientists - CSMonitor.com

Where does the Bible say that when the kinds were created that there was something of their kind prior to them?

Did you read it?

Then how did they come about?

I don't know.

Where does it say that birds share a common ancestor with all other life? Where does it say that birds came from dinosaurs that didn't have wings?

The Bible is not a science book, however, it should agree with what we see in nature.

Where did you show that this design was produced by a deity?

Supportive evidence.

Life forms in a nested hierarchy are not separate. They are joined together by a common ancestor.

You don't know that. It could be three universal ancestors.

Science has moved forward in the last 150 years. Why can't evolution move by more than one tempo?

I didn't say it couldn't I said that is not what Darwin predicted.

A nested hierarchy does falsify design, as has already been shown.

Where?

Why do we need a pattern? We can study planets even though they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. We can study minerals and rocks even though they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Why would life need to fall into a nested hierarchy in order for us to study life? That makes zero sense.

mantra

What is going on with you. I am citing it as an example of convergent evolution which you think somehow falsifies evolution, which is ludicrous. I am showing how convergent evolution is one of the best pieces of evidence that falsifies design.

I never said it falsified evolution.

Why? Why does the ability to adapt and evolve require separately created kinds to fall into a nested hierarchy?

I have explained all of this.

Just like the forensic scientist is coming in behind God after he has already planted fingerprints at the crime scene, right?

redundant.

I have supplied as much evidence for Thor as you have for God.

False. And if you truly believe that then you are far more illogical than I first believed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived is starting from the presupposition that life was designed and created separately, no matter what the evidence is.

Like I said, explain what you mean by created separately.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wiccan --

It is my understanding that Oncedecieved is not opposed to the idea of common ancestry; she just isn't convinced it has been proven. And on a philisophical level, she has a point. There is no way to disprove Last Thursdayism. There is no way to prove that the world did not come into existence Sept 26, 2013, and all of our memories and all the physical evidence were planted to appear to bear out a longer history. For her, it is more than a philosophical exercise, though. I'm unclear about just what it is, however.

In any case, she is not wed to the idea that any taxonomic level corresponds to kind, just to the idea that it is possible that a common ancestor may be an unreachable goal.

We are getting closer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that Loudmouth and others allow for there to be no actual empirical evidence for the universal common ancestor is a big issue, yet they demand that God be proven empirically. Are you seeing that yet?

 

[OllieFranz]

Oncedeceived is starting from the presupposition that life was designed and created separately, no matter what the evidence is.

It is my understanding that that is her starting position, but that she believes that she is flexible on the "separately." She just demands a level of proof that would require far more different transitional fossils than we could ever hope to find. She does not exactly argue a "God of the gaps Creationism," but she does place a lot of her argument in those gaps.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is my understanding that that is her starting position, but that she believes that she is flexible on the "separately." She just demands a level of proof that would require far more different transitional fossils than we could ever hope to find. She does not exactly argue a "God of the gaps Creationism," but she does place a lot of her argument in those gaps.

Hear that sound...hope shattering.

You are right that I do not argue for "God of the gaps Creationism". So that is a step in the right direction. However, I have only the Creation Narrative as my starting point. The proof of transitional fossils have no bearing on that. It is only in showing the differing requirements of evidence that he allows.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hear that sound...hope shattering.

You are right that I do not argue for "God of the gaps Creationism". So that is a step in the right direction. However, I have only the Creation Narrative as my starting point. The proof of transitional fossils have no bearing on that. It is only in showing the differing requirements of evidence that he allows.

What differing requirements?