A simple case for intelligent design

[We Never Know]

You are getting pretty touchie. Maybe you should relax sport.

Do facts bother you? You've made several fslse claims against me while I have supported what I've said with post numbers.
You may be a premium member and me a newbie but I stand with getting the staff involved.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do facts bother you? You've made several fslse claims against me while I have supported what I've said with post numbers.
You may be a premium member and me a newbie but I stand with getting the staff involved.

Actually, you did not support what you said with my posts. I said that your post did not make sense and it did not. That does not indicate I had lost track of anything. You had to add information for it to be understood. This was conveyed by others too.

If you think you should report me for calling what you posted nonsensical, then go ahead.

 

[tas8831]

People who don't accept evolution, if you look at most of their posts, they don't just understand and or are asking why. Instead of trying to get them to understand or answering the why, they are waved off and or called stupid.
Similar scenario: first grade kids don't understand and or ask why constantly. Only wave them off and or call them stupid, none would move on to second grade.
Creationist need the why answered and a hope of explanation to understand. If not, they don't move on to evolution.

Perhaps.

But this and any number of similar forums are filled with creationists not caring or dismissing outright your "why" answers. They ask, we give, they reject. Repeat ad nauseum. I look at creationist posts and I generally see no real questions at all - if they are asking questions, I see 'Look at how I will set this god-haters up with my 'question' trap!', based on garbage they've gleaned from some creationist website.

Show me an example of a creationist asking a sincere 'why' question on this forum. There may be a few, but they will be swamped by the attempted gotchas.

 

[tas8831]

I do not see that either. I do see creationists ignoring valid points and then repeating the same refuted points as if one more time will get the dead into the race.

On every forum I have ever been on, that is by far the most common antic of creationist posters.

There is a fellow that posts on another forum I visit the same - literally, the same - argument ('if you can imagine a robot penguin, then ID is real and creation happened' - paraphrased, but that is basically his argument) for more than a decade. He doesn't want to understand. Most of them don't. Most of them just want to prop up what they've been told to believe.

 

[tas8831]

Change, no matter how large or small, comes from understand what is being talked about.

I suggest you read though threads in which Deeje has been active.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because that isn't what is expected. What we *do* see are creodonts that are ancestral to both dogs and cats. We see ancestors of humans that are also clearly related to other apes. And we see ancestors of *both* crocodiles and birds.

My question involves why only fully formed species are extant. I'm to understand that thousands of generations birth and die between species, genera, etc. but only complete species are extant in fossils or today?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't claim to be smarter than others, that would be silly.


What? The point is that there aren't any crocoducks and evolution doesn't predict that there should be crocoducks or any "half-formed" anything. That simply isn't how it works. I know I've pointed this out to you before, on several occasions. I've even asked you several times before to explain what you mean by "half-formed," but to no avail.

Explain why "that isn't how it works" means there are multiple thousands of generations between species/genera/etc. but only fully formed species extant in fossils and now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Proto-wings you say?

Caudipteryx zoui - an oviraptor dinosaur

Wow, it was found with feathers, and this isn't a concept drawing you sent, from a skeleton or partial skeleton found extant? I stand corrected.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it really isn't. Ask yourself how many letters are in a work of Shakespeare - then do the math.



As regards Shakespeare, see above.

Yes, a cell is complex. But cells exist. Until you can provide evidence that cells are created by your incredibly complex God there is no reason to believe it. Are you making the argument that your God carefully arranges each atom of each molecule for everything that exists?

It's not "statistically unlikely" that if we give 100 monkeys typewriters for a year, that they will produce a copy of a Shakespearean sonnet?!

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are the odds that your God has existed forever?
What are the odds that your God waited for almost all of forever before creating the earth?

What are the odds that the entire universe has existed forever?
If the universe has existed forever--longer than 15B years--what are the odds that forever is even longer than you think, before the creation of Earth?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

On every forum I have ever been on, that is by far the most common antic of creationist posters.

There is a fellow that posts on another forum I visit the same - literally, the same - argument ('if you can imagine a robot penguin, then ID is real and creation happened' - paraphrased, but that is basically his argument) for more than a decade. He doesn't want to understand. Most of them don't. Most of them just want to prop up what they've been told to believe.

This has been my experience too. I am particularly in agreement with your reference to the "gotcha" approach. I have been on forums for years and before that, the old news groups. Another consistent feature is the creationist that suddenly turns, claiming an interest to learn and a wish to establish a dialogue. Most of the time, they were just setting the stage for "gotcha".

I have even seen previous incarnations of the "you guys just dismiss and ridicule creationists" enablers. Logic and observation seem as lost on that type as it is on creationists.

I'll have to remember that story about robot penguins. Did they have laser beams attached to their heads?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not "statistically unlikely" that if we give 100 monkeys typewriters for a year, that they will produce a copy of a Shakespearean sonnet?!

What is the probability for this event? What would Shakespeare think about this criticism of his work?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What are the odds that the entire universe has existed forever?
If the universe has existed forever--longer than 15B years--what are the odds that forever is even longer than you think, before the creation of Earth?

The universe has existed forever?

16 billion years is longer than 15 billion years is forever?

What is forever? Forever is longer than he thinks it is?

The Earth was created at the same time as the universe?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My question involves why only fully formed species are extant. I'm to understand that thousands of generations birth and die between species, genera, etc. but only complete species are extant in fossils or today?

What is half a species? Or .37 of a species?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow, it was found with feathers, and this isn't a concept drawing you sent, from a skeleton or partial skeleton found extant? I stand corrected.

I find it strange that you are making all the claims that you do and are, at the same time, unaware of widely known evidence that is highly relevant to the discussion.

Feathers on non-avian dinosaur fossils have been found and confirmed for more than 25 species in the fossil record.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Explain why "that isn't how it works" means there are multiple thousands of generations between species/genera/etc. but only fully formed species extant in fossils and now.

Over 40 years, photos have been regularly taken of the Brown sisters. At what point in that photo set are they not fully formed? Please tell me which are just half a sister. Half a woman? Half something and again something else?

I am troubled by your lack of knowledge of the evidence, but surely you have heard of ring species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My question involves why only fully formed species are extant. I'm to understand that thousands of generations birth and die between species, genera, etc. but only complete species are extant in fossils or today?

You are a fully formed individual? Are you your father? Your grandfather? You share features that are passed on from them? But you are not them? No individual person in the historical record or that exists now is a fully formed person?

 

[Polymath257]

My question involves why only fully formed species are extant. I'm to understand that thousands of generations birth and die between species, genera, etc. but only complete species are extant in fossils or today?

Because at any point in time only 'fully formed' species are selected for. The point is that those species change over time, always being 'fully formed'.

The analogy is languages. Latin slowly changed into French. At each point in time, the language was 'fully formed'. At each point in time, people understood both the previous generation and the following one and would have considered both to be speaking the same language. Nonetheless, the language changed over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By all means just keep hand waving them off and calling them stupid. That's for sure educating them.

Just to provide some perspective here ...

I see that you are a new member here. Which means you don't have the history with other forum members that some of us have. Those of us that have this history have been around the block many times with particular forum members and the arguments said members have repeatedly made over time. Many of us have already provided extensive explanations and evidence to the questions asked and assertions made by said members, and yet keep seeing the same arguments pop up again and again anew, as if those explanations were not provided. So yes, some of us get to a point where we are tired of repeating ourselves, and instead implore certain posters to educate themselves, since no amount of explanation seems to cure their ignorance on the subject matter.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since we do not at this time, know they complexity of original life or what it takes to be alive, comparisons to man made objects are of very limited value. The internet is man made and is pretty complex.

The point is that you are claiming to know how to calculate the odds of something the rest of us do not have the information to use in calculating those odds.

What is supercomplexity? Time abiogenesis what? How is survivability measured? You are using that argument from incredulity to define the complexity as too difficult to form naturally. I think a lot of things are incredible and they leave me feeling incredulous. I just do not use that as the basis to argue with. If I think something is too incredible to have happened, then I would find out as much as I can to determine if my feelings match reality. I think the idea that Bigfoot is real is incredible. So far, there is no evidence that Bigfoot is a real, living creature or number of creatures. If you believe in Bigfoot, you can, but you will not convince me that Bigfoot is real just because you believe it. I could not convince you Bigfoot is not real, just because I might find it incredible that people would believe something like that. Do you see what I mean?

**I’m asking us to try to spitball some statistical probabilities and numbers. For example, I have about 30 proteins that clot blood when I’m injured. I’m trying to fathom how my ancestors/ancestor species didn’t bleed out when they were injured, and the odds of having 30 proteins that work together, and the odds of having evolved a lymphatic and nervous and a dozen other systems that trigger clotting, so that I don’t bleed to death and also don’t form unneeded clots and die from an embolism. This gedanken is an adjunct to evolution theory, that puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

**…sexual and asexual reproduction, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory. Just to be clear. – source: Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality

**I’m trying to understand how you are using incredulity and supercomplexity arguments to tell me all of 2) above, and thousands of more things, are possible via mechanistic evolution, but don’t believe God can write a book we can follow for life guidance, inerrantly, when working with writers are who yielded to His guidance (!) or that you might be wrong in your perceptions of Bible “problems”. I imagine your answer is, “I’ve read the Bible for myself, and feel certain aspects are wrong,” but if I say, “I’ve studied evolution for myself, and feel certain aspects are wrong,” you say I don’t want to learn and am using emotion rather than logic!

“I think that if you were to make the effort and seek out some general sources reviewing evolution, you would learn something. There are a number of books available that present it in terms that are understandable without a technical background. Mayr's "What Evolution Is" or Zimmer's "Tangled Bank" would be good choices.

If you are truly interested and want to read what is actually coming out of science, then those would be a good start.”

**I hear you, but my goal is to hear from an evolution-committed thinker like you, some answers to my questions—questions formed after studying the issues.

“Bacteria show evidence of evolution in the lab and in the field. Of course they do.

The evidence indicates that bacteria did change in some very important and significant directions. Are you completely sure you can just dismiss that without regard? A logical person would not do that offhand and against the evidence.”

**I’m not dismissing that without regard. I’m rather saying there is an awesome statistical difference between bacterial changes as observed, and Kingdom-Order changes and etc.

“Only creationist expect to find crocoducks and catdogs. No one with a reasonable understanding of evolution expects to find anything like that. There is no expectation for some sort of half one species, half another arising from the theory of evolution. These are not only different species, but in the crocoduck example, they are different classes.

Does anyone really need to explain even the general issues regarding why these are not seen? Have I been giving you too much credit?”

** I’m not asking regarding a crocoduck or catdog. I’m asking again why the phylogenic tree seems very intensive, very well considered, but we can’t find transition fossils for so many, many species. Would some examples help?

“There is often no logic to what I see you posting. That is my honest assessment. You made some references to religion and when I responded directly to the points you made in that post, for no logical reason, you asked not to spend time discussing what you, yourself, brought up. You made the initial reference to monkeys typing Shakespeare and then attacked when others presented responses. I am not seeing someone operating on high logic here, but rather, I am seeing someone with emotional responses to valid points that you are not comfortable with.”

**Do you want to discuss Christianity or evolution? I’m making a game attempt to learn from you via asking questions about evolution, not Christianity. Rather than answer my questions, you lecture me that I’m not “really” wanting to learn, am dogmatic . . . are you certain it’s an “emotional response” to say, for example, “after a century of attempts, scientists designing experiments in controlled conditions cannot reproduce 1/10,000th of life/abiogenesis, so saying it evolved mechanistically seems statistically unlikely. . . ”?

“I still do not understand what you are talking about with regard to one billion species. Is it an estimate of all species that ever lived or do you think that there are one billion species existing alive on Earth today?

**An estimate of all that ever lived. How about keeping things simpler, for our peace of mind, you and I? Was abiogenesis a one-time thing, or did it happen three times, do you think? If you are in the camp that says multiple times, separately, do you wonder at my incredulity? Is my incredulity reasonable, reasoned?