Why ... (2)

[Loudmouth]

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

Already have explained it multiple times.

Species that are created separately do not share a common ancestor and have separate origins.

 

[Loudmouth]

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,

The empirical evidence are the shared features found in all life, from shared genetic systems to shared metabolic systems.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Cyanobacteria are not trees.

I don't know.

Then why do you claim that this is what the Bible says?

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

When you start with the presupposition that all evidence must agree with the Bible before you even look at the evidence you have an unfalsifiable dogmatic position. That is the position you have taken.

Supportive evidence.

Where did you show that the design in nature was caused by a deity?

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

If there were three ancestors then we would have three different genetic and metabolic systems. We don't. We have one. If you follow the evidence it leads to the conclusion of a single universal ancestor.

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

The theory has changed a lot since Darwin. Are we discussing the modern theory, or are we discussing what Darwin got wrong?

Where?

Everywhere. We observe that design does not produce a nested hierarchy, nor is there any reason why design would necessitate a nested hierarchy. The only reason we should see a nested hierarchy is if all life evolved from a single common ancestor.

mantra

That's all you have to say? You claimed that God purposefully made life look like it evolved, even though it didn't, so we could learn about life. That makes zero sense. Why does life have to fall into a nested hierarchy in order for us to study life? This is your argument, why can't you support it?

I never said it falsified evolution.

It certainly falsifies design.

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

If Thor is real then thunder should come from clouds. Thunder comes from clouds, therefore Thor is real. You can deny it all you want, but I have the empirical proof that Thor is real.

 

[EternalDragon]

The empirical evidence are the shared features found in all life, from shared genetic systems to shared metabolic systems.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

That is equal evidence for creation by an ID.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Already have explained it multiple times.

Species that are created separately do not share a common ancestor and have separate origins.

What do you mean by separate? That is my point.

Why do you mean by separate origins?

 

[Smidlee]

That is equal evidence for creation by an ID.

you may find this interesting:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

That is equal evidence for creation by an ID.

But not empirical or testable or scientific evidence. The evidence for ID goes like this "gosh that's complicated. I guess someone designed it"

 

[EternalDragon]

But not empirical or testable or scientific evidence. The evidence for ID goes like this "gosh that's complicated. I guess someone designed it"

If it is not testable or scientific evidence then how is it evidence for naturalistic evolution?

ID theory goes like this. If it was designed it should show biological machinery similar to what humans design and that works as a whole and not piece by piece. It should be similar in all living species. We find exactly what is predicted.

If it was designed living things should all share characteristics. We find exactly what is predicted.

You do realize nature does not build complex machinery or intelligently guide any processes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The empirical evidence are the shared features found in all life, from shared genetic systems to shared metabolic systems.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I would like to point out that if I hadn't read the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1, putting the link on our posts each and every time we discuss the universal common ancestor, I probably wouldn't. I have read it. It has no evidence for the universal common ancestor. It has supportive evidence for one.

You claim that natural processes are the only possible answer but you forget that even the first replicator constitutes a problem. There is no known avenue to even get things started. The empirical evidence of the process of replication to form the first life form is not present. In fact, the process is impossible as far as we know presently. So once again, your empirical worldview can't explain how life even began to evolve even to provide the universal common ancestor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When did this happen?

When did what happen?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

If it is not testable or scientific evidence then how is it evidence for naturalistic evolution?

ID theory goes like this. If it was designed it should show biological machinery similar to what humans design

Then ID has been comprehensively falsified. There are no human designs which reproduce and evolve but life does.

and that works as a whole and not piece by piece. It should be similar in all living species. We find exactly what is predicted.

Making predictions that don't test your hypothesis is pointless.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

If it was designed living things should all share characteristics. We find exactly what is predicted.

Same thing. If no living things shared any characteristics that would be consistent with design by an omnipotent inscrutable supernatural being too. Predictions that don't test your hypothesis are useless.

You do realize nature does not build complex machinery

Looking at any living thing or the solar system or pretty much anything shows that your statement is wrong.

or intelligently guide any processes?

You are simply presuming what you are meant to be trying to prove.

 

[Smidlee]

Looking at any living thing or the solar system or pretty much anything shows that your statement is wrong.

By nature he means by matter and energy only (no intelligence allowed). Living cells has built-in knowledge (know-how) which we can easily remove and kill the cell.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

I love that scientists take so much time from their busy schedule to provide such interesting graphs.

I do not believe that mammal was the first species. What we can know is what the Creation narrative tells us. We know thatz: 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. So the grass, herb yielding seed have a kind that was present prior to the ones listed. That holds true throughout the narrative. Each and every "kind" has a kind prior to it.

So your whole statement of what I think above is incorrect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What differing requirements?

You allow supportive evidence in all areas of your worldview but you won't do the same in mine.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then ID has been comprehensively falsified. There are no human designs which reproduce and evolve but life does.

For even one change in a binding site to happen it would mathematically take more millions of years than history allows for. Take that times all the changes that are required for evolution and you are beyond the age of the earth. That is for ONE species only.

Bold Biology for 2009 - Biologic Institute

Same thing. If no living things shared any characteristics that would be consistent with design by an omnipotent inscrutable supernatural being too. Predictions that don't test your hypothesis are useless.

Actually no. That would be evidence for non-convergent evolution.

Looking at any living thing or the solar system or pretty much anything shows that your statement is wrong.

I don't see how as the universe and life is ordered, is governed by laws and science has no answer to how life started.

You are simply presuming what you are meant to be trying to prove.

Any statement about anything that is not able to be observed or tested or repeated is "presuming". (Evolution for example) Of course the Christian has a supposed eyewitness account from someone that did observe it.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

By nature he means by matter and energy only (no intelligence allowed). Living cells has built-in knowledge (know-how) which we can easily remove and kill the cell.

And that demonstrates design how. BTW a building is natural not supernatural and it is built using human intelligence which can be empirically demonstrated by observing human behaviour so to claim "no intelligence allowed" is simply a lie.

 

[Smidlee]

And that demonstrates design how. BTW a building is natural not supernatural and it is built using human intelligence which can be empirically demonstrated by observing human behaviour so to claim "no intelligence allowed" is simply a lie.

Human pride keeps him from seeing he is not the only intelligent being in the universe. Human can design things because he himself was designed that way.

No intelligence is allowed when it comes to origins. Remember that's the topic.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Human pride keeps him from seeing he is not the only intelligent being in the universe. Human can design things because he himself was designed that way.

No intelligence is allowed when it comes to origins. Remember that's the topic.

Nonsense. Bowerbird bowers are intelligently designed as are beaver dams and both are natural and can be empirically demonstrated through observing their behaviour. If you can come up with any evidence regarding intelligence involved with "origins" (whatever that Humpty Dumpty word is supposed to mean) then sure it's allowed. Data, observation, testing, experiment, this is what you need, not just "Gosh that's complex. Must be designed"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I love that scientists take so much time from their busy schedule to provide such interesting graphs.

Your mockery has been duly noted.

I do not believe that mammal was the first species. What we can know is what the Creation narrative tells us. We know thatz: 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. So the grass, herb yielding seed have a kind that was present prior to the ones listed. That holds true throughout the narrative. Each and every "kind" has a kind prior to it.

So your whole statement of what I think above is incorrect.

This is what I suspected. But I'm now left not knowing what you believe at all. What, exactly, did God create? Exactly how much have those original creations diversified since the creation event? How long ago was the creation event?

 

[Smidlee]

Data, observation, testing, experiment, this is what you need, not just "Gosh that's complex. Must be designed"

That's exactly what I would say if we found a Stargate on Mars. The reason I say living cells are design is the same reason that computers and it's software are design. They both have "built-in" knowledge to perform a task.
Even scientist admit we are "programmed" to see and know design.