A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

If you're truly interested in evolutionary biology (and you seem to be, since it appears you like debating it), I would suggest you take some time and read through a few science-based websites and then some books specifically written for laypeople, and then after that if you were still intrigued, browsing through a few journal articles on some specific sub-topics that pique your interest.

I most certainly would not rely on creationist sources for your info on evolutionary biology. After all, you wouldn't rely on Richard Dawkins for your info on the Bible, would you?

Why assume I only read one side of every argument? I know that I'm more open minded than you, since you say Creationists aren't scientists and cherry pick, and I read both evolutionary and creationist perspectives.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What I'd like is to discuss is actual evidence.

Observed evidence? Lab-tested evidence? You mean like that lacking for abiogenesis and macro-evolution?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't determine what "eternity is like". I just accept common usage dictionary definitions...

e·ter·ni·ty
Dictionary result for eternity
/əˈtərnədē/
noun
infinite or unending time.​

Because with "unending time" you will be able to eat a bacon cheesburger with one slice of bacon an uncountable number of times; you will be able to eat a bacon cheesburger with two slices of bacon an uncountable number of times; you will be able to eat...need I go on? With unending time you will get bored to the point of insanity.


You are really trying to compare your Christian walks with unending time? But, maybe you are right. Maybe you would finding eating a cheesburger with one and one half slices of bacon something new an exiting - Yipee!

We are both making conjectures re: eternity.

Your assumption is, that given enough time, eternity shall be boring.

My experience is, I still crave cheeseburgers after thousands of iterations. The craving has not diminished, and sometimes lately, the pleasure is intensified over prior iterations.

If you are really so bored of life now, get counseling--preferably from a Bible-based, Christian counselor.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Observed evidence? Lab-tested evidence? You mean like that lacking for abiogenesis and macro-evolution?

Empirical evidence. Which evolution is definitely not lacking in.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

I see, EvolutionDidIt. Can I please converse with people who provide facts, not just so stories, PLEASE?

What facts do you want? Do you want a specific, generation-by-generation breakdown of each individual species in which the population evolved the appendix?

It's really quite simple: if a similar formation of an organ would provide an advantage in multiple environments for different populations, evolution may naturally result in similar formations in those populations. Do you know exactly HOW similar those proto-cecal appendixes really are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. I will demonstrate how God turned silicates into bio-organic compounds as soon as we see science, on the case for a century now, demonstrates a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of abiogenesis! (PS. Why are we discussing whether the prime mover of the universe can synthesize compounds?)
2. You've never seen a paper showing the geologic column is not always oldest at bottom, newest at top? There are plenty from non-Creationists on this matter!
3. Sin causes genetic mutation? Is that in the Bible?!
4. You've never read a paper or article describing how fossils were formed and laid in strata during catastrophic epochs on a Creationist site? Do you read Creationist sites?

1. Been there,done that. It appears that you are more than sixty years behind the times.
2. Creationists tend to not understand those papers.
3. Define "sin". It may not exist. In which case the answer is no. Strangely enough it is creationists that often believe that sin is the cause of mutations
4. If I need a good laugh at times I do read sites that make their workers swear not to use the scientific method.

They get so much wrong that one wonders why anyone believes them.

 

[Audie]

Now that billiards is back, hoping to see some follow-up on issues left dangling, in no particular order:

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design


And especially this one -

A simple case for intelligent design

Thanks, bro!

You are off by a few letters.

Ask for what it is possible!

"Faclie", not "simple"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is a cecal appendix's functions as simple, say, as my liver, which has over 500 known bodily functions?

It is much simpler than a liver. It is not much more than a pocket. That such a simple structure could evolve multiple times is not unusual:

Appendix (anatomy) - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

The failure is using subjective morality to judge a moral law-giver, one is antecedent to humanity and absolute.

Nope, biblical morality is even more subjective than secular morality. In fact one can make a better case for secular objective morality than one can make for Christian objective m orality.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why assume I only read one side of every argument?

Because of how you're very familiar with creationist talking points but no so familiar with the science.

I know that I'm more open minded than you, since you say Creationists aren't scientists and cherry pick

Where did I do either of those?

and I read both evolutionary and creationist perspectives.

What have you read from the evolutionary perspective?

 

[tas8831]

BB:
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.

1. I will demonstrate how God turned silicates into bio-organic compounds as soon as we see science, on the case for a century now, demonstrates a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of abiogenesis! (PS. Why are we discussing whether the prime mover of the universe can synthesize compounds?)

You asked what I had never seen creation scientists do, I provide a partial list, and this is how you answer?
We are discussing this because YOU asked ME what I was referring to. Seeing as how creationist scientists believe in creation , that is, bible lore, with no evidence, I wonder why they never look into their own position. THAT is why.
I will ignore, for now, that the very foundation (the existence of the 'Prime Mover') is also suspect and devoid of supporting evidence - there is less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of evidence for Yahweh than there is for abiogenesis.

2. You've never seen a paper showing the geologic column is not always oldest at bottom, newest at top? There are plenty from non-Creationists on this matter!

You are misinterpreting (probably on purpose) - if creation were true, then the geologic column SHOULD be universal, since it was laid down only ~4500 years ago and the understood geologic phenomena that can explain things like inversions would not have had time to operate.

3. Sin causes genetic mutation? Is that in the Bible?!

It is a claim made by many creation 'scientists'. Are you saying that I should not believe them?

4. You've never read a paper or article describing how fossils were formed and laid in strata during catastrophic epochs on a Creationist site? Do you read Creationist sites?

Yes, I have, that is why I am waiting for the science. What I see on creationism sites regarding the fossil record are just-so stories, too dopey to be serious.
None of them provide realistic or rational explanations as to why, for example, we never find the fossils of rhinos in strata contemporaneous with strata containing ceratopsians.

Thanks for a predictably vacuous reply.



And don't forget these!

Now that billiards is back, hoping to see some follow-up on issues left dangling, in no particular order:

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design


And especially this one -

A simple case for intelligent design

Thanks, bro!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because "God did it" isn't an explanation.
Some people are actually interested in investigating how things in our world operate.

And... "evolutiondidit" is inadequate to explain abiogenesis, after a century of research, as is "GodDIDN'TDoItBecauseEvolutionDidIt"

And... way to ignore the rest of my post.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Empirical evidence. Which evolution is definitely not lacking in.

And... there is plenty of empirical evidence for Bible truth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What facts do you want? Do you want a specific, generation-by-generation breakdown of each individual species in which the population evolved the appendix?

It's really quite simple: if a similar formation of an organ would provide an advantage in multiple environments for different populations, evolution may naturally result in similar formations in those populations. Do you know exactly HOW similar those proto-cecal appendixes really are?

Is it simple? I guess it is: EvolutionDidItBecauseItWorksAndExists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is it simple? I guess it is: EvolutionDidItBecauseItWorksAndExists.

That's not what I said. Here it is again:

It's really quite simple: if a similar formation of an organ would provide an advantage in multiple environments for different populations, evolution may naturally result in similar formations in those populations. Do you know exactly HOW similar those proto-cecal appendixes really are?

Also, I asked you a question. When are you going to answer it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You asked what I had never seen creation scientists do, I provide a partial list, and this is how you answer?
We are discussing this because YOU asked ME what I was referring to. Seeing as how creationist scientists believe in creation , that is, bible lore, with no evidence, I wonder why they never look into their own position. THAT is why.
I will ignore, for now, that the very foundation (the existence of the 'Prime Mover') is also suspect and devoid of supporting evidence - there is less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of evidence for Yahweh than there is for abiogenesis.


You are misinterpreting (probably on purpose) - if creation were true, then the geologic column SHOULD be universal, since it was laid down only ~4500 years ago and the understood geologic phenomena that can explain things like inversions would not have had time to operate.

It is a claim made by many creation 'scientists'. Are you saying that I should not believe them?

Yes, I have, that is why I am waiting for the science. What I see on creationism sites regarding the fossil record are just-so stories, too dopey to be serious.
None of them provide realistic or rational explanations as to why, for example, we never find the fossils of rhinos in strata contemporaneous with strata containing ceratopsians.

Thanks for a predictably vacuous reply.



And don't forget these!

Now that billiards is back, hoping to see some follow-up on issues left dangling, in no particular order:

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design


And especially this one -

A simple case for intelligent design

Thanks, bro!

If I'm "predictably vacuous", I must infer:

* You are simply an attention-getting, rude person
* Like attracts like, so you are vacuous
* You fear creation will upset scientific academia, a hardly credible threat!
* Etc.
* Anything else I missed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And... there is plenty of empirical evidence for Bible truth.

Even if there was, which I doubt, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or this debate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And... "evolutiondidit" is inadequate to explain abiogenesis,

Yes, it would be, if evolution were actually anything to do with abiogenesis, which many posters here have repeatedly explained it isn't. Once again: evolution is an explanation for how life diversifies over time, not how life originates. Nobody has proposed evolution theory is used to explain abiogenesis outside of the imaginations of creationists.

Seriously, BB, there's an entire thread about this already.

after a century of research, as is "GodDIDN'TDoItBecauseEvolutionDidIt"

Just as this is also an argument only ever made in the imaginations of creationists. Nobody has asserted that God "didn't do it because evolution did". That's not an argument I've ever seen made in these threads.

 

[tas8831]

Why assume I only read one side of every argument?

Not an assumption, a tentative conclusion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And... "evolutiondidit" is inadequate to explain abiogenesis, after a century of research, as is "GodDIDN'TDoItBecauseEvolutionDidIt"

Evolution isn't expected to explain abiogenesis by anyone who understands it, nor does it try. It's a different field of study. As you should know by now.

And... way to ignore the rest of my post.

I didn't see anything that was relevant in it. Sorry.