A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Which one of the 26 definitions of species would you care to use today. At least until the next post.....

I think your confused as to who is shooting who’s foot...

Wrong again. This has been explained to you more than once. A consequence of the fact of evolution is that "species" will not be well defined. But if, and this is a big IF creationism were true there would be no reason that Kinds could not be defined. Your failure supports evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep repeating the same stupid lie as if you’ve done anything but claim you’ve shown anything. As this post proves.... just another “because I said so” argument which you’ve already rejected by your own admission....

No, he was pointing out that your claim has been refuted countless times, and like me, he asked for a valid source supporting your claim.

Why did you not find a valid source?

 

[SkepticThinker]

He didn’t see design? Then why even theorize aliens could be the cause of that design? Your false reasonings don’t stand up to the reality.

Let’s understand the reality. Dawkins was asked:

What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or evolution?” Dawkins responded:

“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”

Actually, scientists have looked and are still looking at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology and finding unmistakeable evidence of design. Design so good that scientists would love to copy it if only they knew how....

And it wasn’t by an alien that evolved by some Darwinian means. An apparently unknown means, just somehow.....


Your projecting your own subconscious feelings about evolution....

Which scientists? Where can we read their peer reviewed studies?

 

[sealchan]

What’s changed?

T-Rex remained T-Rex from the first one found until it went extinct. They all do. You imagine links and missing common ancestors.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Just as T-Rex mated with T-Rex and produced only T-Rex.

Any changes that occur due to mating (Husky and Mastiff produced the Chinook) only produces variation within that species. Just as their is no missing common ancestor for the Chinook, so there is none for the rest.

You simply can’t tell what mated with what from a pile of bones, so imagine some common ancestor must have split and evolved. But neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky stays Husky, the Mastiff stays Mastiff and the Chinook appears suddenly in the record where it did not exist before. Just as we observe in the fossil record......

If you and your twin brother get in separate boats and row in separate directions out into the ocean, at what point do the brothers end up being in two different places?

Species are like different places in the ocean of genetics. The twins are two different separated populations of the same species. Two points on the tree of life branch when they become two different populations.

When you think about common ancestor you also have to think about separate population.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I already explained that I would support my claims with reliable sources, why do you constantly accuse others of your sins?

Agreed, you keep claiming you’ll support them.....

The reliability of the sources is what is in question as those sources will keep claiming “missing common ancestors” to support their belief.....

Or just be plain wrong as they were with claiming the Colecanth was the ancestor between water and land....

But then you’ll just “claim” they are correct this time when they have repeatedly been wrong. “Because they say so”.....

Wrong agian. Why must you rely on strawman arguments constantly? Darwinian evolution is not random chance and you know this. You really need to address one point at a time since you get so much wrong.

It’s pure random chance that a random mutation “might” just make a creature able to survive in whatever environment happens to be randomly existing at any given time.....

Your avoidance does you little credit except show your avoidance....

Repeating an obvious error does not help you.

Repeating a claim of an error without showing the error dies not help you.

Back to the “because I said so” fallacy you go....

You can't call yourself a Christian and make such false claims about others. By not taking me up on my offer you confirm that you do not understand the scientific method. It is the observations that need to be repeatable and not necessarily the results. You are once again proposing a strawman version of the scientific method.

If you got it prove it. Stop relying on the fallacy it’s my fault you can’t present your claimed evidence....

Once again bearing class witness against others. I do not make unfounded claims. You refuse to discuss concepts properly

You’ve presented none. Just keep claiming you are going to.....

Yes, we know that that is all that you have.

I got every observation in history. All you got is “missing common ancestors”....

You are running away again and demonstrating a lack of comprehension of not only evolution, but of creationism as well. One consequence of the fact that life is the product of evolution is that the concept of "species" will not be well defined. This is rather obvious. One consequence of creationism being true would be that there would be recognizable Kinds. There would be a well defined method of telling if two groups were of the same Kind of not.

That’s what you keep claiming....

Definition of SPECIES

Notice definition 1a, the primary definition of species. So the fact you can’t define species is why Kind can’t be precisely defined...

There are no missing common ancestors since that is once again a strawman. They are not missing since they are not predicted. What we have are endless transitional fossils.

Can’t even argue your own theory correctly....

Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia

That you cannot debate is very telling. Can you debate properly? Can you learn from your errors and not repeat them?

“Because you said so”?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you and your twin brother get in separate boats and row in separate directions out into the ocean, at what point do the brothers end up being in two different places?

Species are like different places in the ocean of genetics.

Except my brother won’t change, the water will still be water. They will still be in the same body of water regardless that we may call it the Pacific or Atlantic..... There really is no coherent argument that you can use..... because the ToE is incoherent....

 

[SkepticThinker]

Looks like we've got another one who refuses to define "kind."
Ho hum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Except my brother won’t change, the water will still be water. They will still be in the same body of water regardless that we may call it the Pacific or Atlantic..... There really is no coherent argument that you can use..... because the ToE is incoherent....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which scientists? Where can we read their peer reviewed studies?

You already have. You just keep imagining the incredible design you see isn’t really design, because no one wants to admit to the Designer....

Blinding yourself to the design won’t make it go away. It just means you have to keep making up more excuses to ignore it....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Looks like we've got another one who refuses to define "kind."
Ho hum.

Define species.......

I gave you the definition of Kind....

Definition of SPECIES

You are just incapable of following your own definitions so it’s understandable you would be confused.

“a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name”

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And such will be your only response because you can’t make a rational one.......

So you’ll blind yourself....

So tell us, what is the difference between the water in one place and whatever distance I’ll let you decide is another place?

Has it changed to a different type of water?

Have the brothers changed?

Their boats?

Is the air suddenly not air?

What exactly is the difference besides a arbitrary name?????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, you keep claiming you’ll support them.....

The reliability of the sources is what is in question as those sources will keep claiming “missing common ancestors” to support their belief.....

Or just be plain wrong as they were with claiming the Colecanth was the ancestor between water and land....

But then you’ll just “claim” they are correct this time when they have repeatedly been wrong. “Because they say so”.....

You keep running away from the discussion so you will never know. The sources that I will use will be general sources and not even directly tied to evolution.

And please, don't repeat previously lost arguments of yours. I even linked the article that probably led to your error where it said that coelacanth was not a direct ancestor and showed that the cladogram that I used from another article that you disputed was the same in that regards as the one from the article telling how they were not in a direct line.

It’s pure random chance that a random mutation “might” just make a creature able to survive in whatever environment happens to be randomly existing at any given time.....

Your avoidance does you little credit except show your avoidance....

You are making two errors here. First you are assuming a direction to evolution. There is none. There are only results. Yes, random variation creates new traits. And you are forgetting the other half of evolution, natural selection. Creationists cannot handle natural selection and random variation together. By the way, natural selection guarantees that evolution is NOT a random process.

Repeating a claim of an error without showing the error dies not help you.

Back to the “because I said so” fallacy you go....

Wrong again. You were corrected earlier. If every correction is repeated in every post then each post would grow infinitely long. When you were corrected that fact alone is enough.

If you got it prove it. Stop relying on the fallacy it’s my fault you can’t present your claimed evidence....

You don't even know what evidence is and you refuse to learn. What good would it do?

You’ve presented none. Just keep claiming you are going to.....

Let's avoid breaking the Tenth Commandment. If you do not understand something ask questions politely and properly. You need to start a different post if you have a question. One question per post.

I got every observation in history. All you got is “missing common ancestors”....

This error of yours has been corrected countless times. They are not missing if they are not predicted. Either you have to accept transitional fossils as "missing ancestors" or rephrase your terminology. Either way your are wrong.

That’s what you keep claiming....

Definition of SPECIES

Notice definition 1a, the primary definition of species. So the fact you can’t define species is why Kind can’t be precisely defined...

That is an amazing fail. One NEVER uses a dictionary for a technical term. You are also trying to place the blame where it does not belong. Due to evolution there will be no hard definition of "species". It simply cannot be done. We can talk about the ancestry of a group. Closely related groups, etc, but where one becomes a different "species" will always have exceptions. If there was a "kind" it could be identified. This is Aron Ra's phylogenetic challenge that no creationist has ever been able to respond to. And that is because creationism is not science. It is a myth:

Can’t even argue your own theory correctly....

Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia

Your inability to understand due to your poor arguments does not mean that I am arguing incorrectly. Try again.

“Because you said so”?????

No, because I can support my claims and because you can't. In long posts like this you will only get short corrections. If you want a fuller one then you must ask questions politely and properly, one at a time, in separate posts. That means one question that we will go over first before moving on to another. You may have to learn the scientific method and what is and what is not evidence before you can get a full answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define species.......

I gave you the definition of Kind....

Definition of SPECIES

You are just incapable of following your own definitions so it’s understandable you would be confused.

“a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name”

That is not a working definition of "kind". Tell me, how would you tell if two groups were of the same "kind" or not. I do not want to strawman your position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except my brother won’t change, the water will still be water. They will still be in the same body of water regardless that we may call it the Pacific or Atlantic..... There really is no coherent argument that you can use..... because the ToE is incoherent....

Then by your standards all life is the same "kind".

 

[Polymath257]

Then by your standards all life is the same "kind".

Exactly. That works for me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You keep running away from the discussion so you will never know. The sources that I will use will be general sources and not even directly tied to evolution.

And please, don't repeat previously lost arguments of yours. I even linked the article that probably led to your error where it said that coelacanth was not a direct ancestor and showed that the cladogram that I used from another article that you disputed was the same in that regards as the one from the article telling how they were not in a direct line.



You are making two errors here. First you are assuming a direction to evolution. There is none. There are only results. Yes, random variation creates new traits. And you are forgetting the other half of evolution, natural selection. Creationists cannot handle natural selection and random variation together. By the way, natural selection guarantees that evolution is NOT a random process.



Wrong again. You were corrected earlier. If every correction is repeated in every post then each post would grow infinitely long. When you were corrected that fact alone is enough.



You don't even know what evidence is and you refuse to learn. What good would it do?



Let's avoid breaking the Tenth Commandment. If you do not understand something ask questions politely and properly. You need to start a different post if you have a question. One question per post.



This error of yours has been corrected countless times. They are not missing if they are not predicted. Either you have to accept transitional fossils as "missing ancestors" or rephrase your terminology. Either way your are wrong.



That is an amazing fail. One NEVER uses a dictionary for a technical term. You are also trying to place the blame where it does not belong. Due to evolution there will be no hard definition of "species". It simply cannot be done. We can talk about the ancestry of a group. Closely related groups, etc, but where one becomes a different "species" will always have exceptions. If there was a "kind" it could be identified. This is Aron Ra's phylogenetic challenge that no creationist has ever been able to respond to. And that is because creationism is not science. It is a myth:

Your inability to understand due to your poor arguments does not mean that I am arguing incorrectly. Try again.


No, because I can support my claims and because you can't. In long posts like this you will only get short corrections. If you want a fuller one then you must ask questions politely and properly, one at a time, in separate posts. That means one question that we will go over first before moving on to another. You may have to learn the scientific method and what is and what is not evidence before you can get a full answer.

He’s making the same claim I make. You can’t define species.

I’ve defined Kind.

But you ignore it when those Finches mate right in front of your eyes and produce fertile offspring....

Even if that is the prime definition of species......

But because you can’t follow your own definitions you are confused....

 

[Subduction Zone]

You already have. You just keep imagining the incredible design you see isn’t really design, because no one wants to admit to the Designer....

Blinding yourself to the design won’t make it go away. It just means you have to keep making up more excuses to ignore it....

Creationists cannot even define "design" just as they can't define "kind". You might as well say "You just keep imagining the incredible flurf you see isn’t really flurf, because no one wants to admit to the Flurfer....

You also have a false accusation. Christianity if anything teaches people that they do not have to own up to their "sins". They only have to confess to their make believe friend. There is no requirement to right the wrongs that they did. Atheists know that if they wrong someone it is up to them to make it right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He’s making the same claim I make. You can’t define species.

I’ve defined Kind.

But you ignore it when those Finches mate right in front of your eyes and produce fertile offspring....

Even if that is the prime definition of species......

But because you can’t follow your own definitions you are confused....

No, the demand was for a working definition. That means if you have two separate group you would have some way of telling if they were the same "kind" or not. What is your standard?

That there are several different definitions of species is a consequence of the fact of evolution. Why is this so hard to understand? Evolution will guarantee a fuzzy line between "species". That supports the theory. We see that in reality there is no single working definition of species. If there was one that would support your claims. I would be in trouble IF I could find one single working definition of species.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Define species.......

I gave you the definition of Kind....

Definition of SPECIES

You are just incapable of following your own definitions so it’s understandable you would be confused.

“a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name”

If this is your definition of kind, then we have already seen evolution above the level of kind:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Ring species - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

He’s making the same claim I make. You can’t define species.

I’ve defined Kind.

But you ignore it when those Finches mate right in front of your eyes and produce fertile offspring....

Even if that is the prime definition of species......

But because you can’t follow your own definitions you are confused....

Your definition fails. That means you supported evolution.

I told you from the start that I could not define species due to evolution.


This is rather basic logic. What part do you not understand.

Think of it this way. C implies that we should be able to define k. E implies that we should not be able to define s.

I have admitted that I cannot give a fully working definition of species and you supported that claim by mentioning that there are quite a few different competing definitions of species, none of them fully "right".

Creationism on the other hand says that there was one original "kind" that all of members of that kind were descended from. If that is the case we should be able to tell if two separate groups had that one common ancestor or not.