A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

When one can’t speak, one starts to hide behind laughter.
Lol..at you! not with you.

If you can't speak why even post here? What do you expect to accomplish?

 

[ecco]

When one can’t speak, one starts to hide behind laughter.
Lol..at you! not with you.

Did you just admit that you can't speak? Are you trying to hide behind your "lol"?

 

[Workman]

And out comes all questionables!
Why is that I have my answers and others don’t. I’ll let you figure it out!

 

[Subduction Zone]

And out comes all questionables!
Why is that I have my answers and others don’t. I’ll let you figure it out!

It is seriously doubtful that you have any answers. At least correct ones. Just because one believes is not enough. If one truly has answers then he can explain why he has answers. Word salad is indicative that all one has is belief.

 

[Workman]

It is seriously doubtful that you have any answers. At least correct ones. Just because one believes is not enough. If one truly has answers then he can explain why he has answers. Word salad is indicative that all one has is belief.

Yes, I understand! I will stop!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry I should have been more clearer about it! And yes I agree.
What I meant to say is a doorway to evil

Almost anything can be a doorway to evil. It depends on the use that it is put to and the intent of the user.

 

[Workman]

Almost anything can be a doorway to evil. It depends on the use that it is put to and the intent of the user.

I totally agree! It depends on the ones intent, and anything is nearly everything except nature itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once you have experienced 1/10th of 1% of eternity you will have done everything millions of times over. You will have climbed all mountains millions of times. You will have been given a cheek pinch by Aunt Betty a million times. You will be totally bored. And when you realize that you still have to endure this for eternity, you will wish for a means of suicide. Alternatively, you will wish that we atheists were right and you would have indeed died when you died.


I have no trouble imagining it. I can accept it. When I do, I realize how completely ineffective he was for most of eternity,

On what basis did you determine:

1) What eternity is like
2) Why I (not you!) will get bored of learning, eating, making love, etc.
3) Why an omnipotent God cannot do something (alleviate boredom, which He does constantly now, in my Christian walk)

??

 

[BilliardsBall]

The basics of creation science:

• Some things are so complex they could not have formed.
• Abiogenesis is impossible. No one has ever seen a non-living thing become a living thing.
• The odds of species evolving is 1 in x^z - impossible. No one has ever seen a monkey become a man.

What's to read? All objections by fundie creos have been debunked repeatedly.

Sounds like you have forgotten:

* Issues of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, chemistry, chirality, etc.
* The power and love of God

 

[BilliardsBall]

Papers? I think you mean essays.

I have several volumes of CRSQ and have read dozens of 'technical' papers by creation scientists, most of whom, by the way, write well outside of their actual field of expertise.

Nearly all such papers are just attacks on evolution, usually premised on flawed reasoning or even fabrication. I have never seen a paper by any creation scientist that purported to have tested some aspect of creationism. They never will, probably out of fear.
I am aware of what used to be called the Baraminology Study Group, lead by Todd Wood and Kurt Wise, creation scientists who are unique in that they have both admitted that the evidence does point to evolution, but that they reject this due to their Faith in Scripture.
The BSG now either has a new name of is defunct, but for a time they sought to examine, using science, the relationships between 'baramina' (created Kinds).
It was funny and sad to see their work - an honest analysis supported evolution, but they employed what they called "the Scriptural criterion" - this allowed them to dismiss results that did not comply with their interpretation of scripture (such science!).
More recently, we have people like Jeff Tomkins trying to 'undo' pretty much any genetics-related evidence putting chimps and humans together as having a shared ancestry. Jeff relies on his target audience not understanding the technical details of his output, and leaping to his defense when he is outed as making errors or worse. He has, for example, tried to nullify the 'percent similarity' issues, as well as the chromosome 2 thing (which he misrepresents from the outset). Pity that his efforts have been largely exposed as deceptive or error-riddled (one example here).

But I am sure that the creation scientist papers you hint at are totally legit and accurate.

My curiosity is prompted--what do you mean "I have never seen a paper by any creation scientist that purported to have tested some aspect of creationism." Please be specific.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The issue is that you continually try to challenge and criticize a field of science--evolutionary biology--without taking the time to learn the subject first. Whether your appreciate it or not, that sort of thing does indeed make you look like an "idiot" (to borrow your label).

If you want to avoid that sort of thing in the future, I suggest you make the effort to learn about evolutionary biology, then decide whether or not it should be challenged. If you decide it is, feel free to get back to us with your arguments. But as long as you keep trying to critique a subject you know little about, people are going to keep laughing at you.

What do you mean by "learn"? I'm not a PhD in the field.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You gave four reasons why you believe God would create creatures with "half-wings." None of them are "real" in the sense that they are factually based. Like seriously, one of your reasons was "beauty." Do you find "half-wings" to be quite beautiful?

If I said, "I can think of reasons why God would create X but do not know for sure," would you continue to criticize me for attempting to think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It appears that the articles you linked answered your question. Did you have a point in asking if in the first place?

Which article addressed the statistical likelihood/unlikelihood of an organ system evolving 30-40 separate times, rather than once, through an ancient line of descent?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is nothing "sophisticated" on line. Creationist sources are almost always lying sources. That is one of the reasons that there is no respect for creationists at all in the sciences.

If you understand the basics of science, what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence, it quickly becomes obvious that the creationists have nothing.

Interestingly, I cannot find anything new or sophisticated (or clear) in your understanding of scripture--yet you constantly attack the Bible. Why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Having a proto-cecal appendix that does more-or-less the same thing and then having a cecal appendix is a slight variation.

Also, you are not being Socratic, since you have already formed a conclusion on evolutionary theory: evolutionary theory is "just-so stories". If you were being truly Socratic, you wouldn't form a conclusion initially and would ask questions from a state of ignorance (either honest or assumed) before forming a conclusion based on the responses.

Untrue. I DID have pre-assumed belief--all of evolutionary science is accurate. I then asked questions from a state of ignorance and formed conclusions, carefully, over a period of time. You and I were indoctrinated and I got "woke", is what happened in our schooling system IMHO.

From a "state of ignorance" -- how did the proto-cecal appendix separately evolve 30-40 times, rather than in one line of descent? What is the statistical likelihood/unlikelihood?

You will no doubt reply:

1) No one calculate this and/or
2) It's very likely, since like a ball falling to Earth, gravity responds (not knowing what these force-feeding laws of evolution are, what gravity is, or knowing the Creator

This is the problem you're now experiencing.

 

[tas8831]

Sounds like you have forgotten:

* Issues of thermodynamics,

Such as?

fluid dynamics

Such as?

, chemistry, chirality, etc.

Do tell!

* The power and love of God

Not in evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Untrue. I DID have pre-assumed belief--all of evolutionary science is accurate. I then asked questions from a state of ignorance and formed conclusions, carefully, over a period of time. You and I were indoctrinated and I got "woke", is what happened in our schooling system IMHO.

But you still have a pre-formed conclusion NOW. You aren't operating from a genuinely Socratic position, because you are already arguing from the position that evolution is "just so stories".

From a "state of ignorance" -- how did the proto-cecal appendix separately evolve 30-40 times, rather than in one line of descent?

Evolution.

What is the statistical likelihood/unlikelihood?

Meaningless, since evolutionary change isn't driven by chance or probability but by myriad environmental and genetic influences.

You will no doubt reply:

1) No one calculate this and/or
2) It's very likely, since like a ball falling to Earth, gravity responds (not knowing what these force-feeding laws of evolution are, what gravity is, or knowing the Creator

This is the problem you're now experiencing.

Except it's not a problem with anything except your question. Your question betrays a fundamental presumption that evolution is driven by chance and probability, which it isn't.

 

[tas8831]

My curiosity is prompted--what do you mean "I have never seen a paper by any creation scientist that purported to have tested some aspect of creationism." Please be specific.

Thanks.

I have never seen a paper in a creation science journal or on a creation website that sought to test:

1. how silicates were transformed into bio-organic compounds
2. why the geologic column is not universal
3. how sin causes mutation
4. why the fossil record has no modern fossils in undisturbed strata with long-extinct creatures
5. etc.

 

[tas8831]

What do you mean by "learn"? I'm not a PhD in the field.

Then why do you present yourself as either being able to , or having already presented arguments that refute evolution?

 

[tas8831]

Which article addressed the statistical likelihood/unlikelihood of an organ system evolving 30-40 separate times, rather than once, through an ancient line of descent?

The appendix is not an "organ system."