An email I sent to an evolution prof at my alma mater

[Jayhawker Soule]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too!

Good grief ...

 

[Milton Platt]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

Haven't bothered to read the link yet, but I will if I get bored with life. Just to let you know, the evolutionary process actually isn't entirely random.
How does Anthony Flew's conversion to Christianity cause it to be true? Does a Christian's conversion to atheism then prove it to be true??? And round and round we go!

Edit: Okay, I clicked on the link and it is for an apologetics website, No science there. I saw two articles insisting that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Not going to waste my time with crap like that., sorry.

 

[outhouse]

. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

Intelligence is not required to hand wave rhetoric away, for what it is, and is not.


It takes more intelligence to not jump through someone's metal imaginative hurdles, they themselves cannot jump through. \



Here is realty sir. Evolution is fact.

ID is modern rhetoric created to keep theology in public schools and it failed and was called factually pseudoscience.


have a nice day

 

[outhouse]

As former teacher myself

Somewhere, there are some very lucky children.

 

[viole]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

Same question to you I ask to all creationists.

If evolution is not true, why do we look so similar to hairless gorillas?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

It seems like you have a very misguided understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Human beings are currently on the top of the evolutionary chain (to the best of our knowledge), but that doesn't mean that we aren't still evolving, because we certainly are. Also, our scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped (it's really only a few hundred years old), it is absurd to use God of the gaps arguments, claiming that our lack of scientific understanding or our lack of natural alternatives to God would in any way support the argument that "God did it".

 

[leibowde84]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

Here is a list of things found that confirm/evidence evolution (http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html)

• 
  Ancient Organism Remains
  
  Fossil Layers
  
  Similarities Among Living Organisms
  
  Similarities of Embryos
  

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

I admit I didn't have time to read everything here, but I think you get to the heart of the issue. This is the same basic reason that most people are skeptical of conventional evolution- (i.e. driven by random chance mutations as opposed to any guiding design)

Evolution is a very simple,attractive, elegant, intuitive, explanation for the diversity and complexity of species, in the same way classical physics was for the diversity and complexity of the physical universe

But when we get into the nitty gritty of each , we cannot demonstrate/ replicate such simple laws producing anything but simple results- both collapse under entropy, without another layer of information, dictating very specific results within what appears superficially, to be simple and unguided self explanatory mechanisms.

This software running this site is no different, the fact that the superficial result we see is simple, intuitive, self organizing, is the result of extremely complex instructions specific to that very end.

So we can directly observe many examples of simplicity arising from complexity This happening the opposite way around is a very tempting speculation, because it make anything possible without design, and making God redundant is an even greater impetus behind evolution than it was classical physics- but very difficult to establish scientifically.

 

[leibowde84]

I admit I didn't have time to read everything here, but I think you get to the heart of the issue. This is the same basic reason that most people are skeptical of conventional evolution- (i.e. driven by random chance mutations as opposed to any guiding design)

Evolution is a very simple,attractive, elegant, intuitive, explanation for the diversity and complexity of species, in the same way classical physics was for the diversity and complexity of the physical universe

But when we get into the nitty gritty of each , we cannot demonstrate/ replicate such simple laws producing anything but simple results- both collapse under entropy, without another layer of information, dictating very specific results within what appears superficially, to be simple and unguided self explanatory mechanisms.

This software running this site is no different, the fact that the superficial result we see is simple, intuitive, self organizing, is the result of extremely complex instructions specific to that very end.

So we can directly observe many examples of simplicity arising from complexity This happening the opposite way around is a very tempting speculation, because it make anything possible without design, and making God redundant is an even greater impetus behind evolution than it was classical physics- but very difficult to establish scientifically.

You often refer to the human body being well-designed, but that seems to be incorrect. Our bodies are not meant for the kinds of lives we live (for the most part). So, why would a "designer" design our physical bodies so inefficiently/foolishly?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here is a list of things found that confirm/evidence evolution (http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html)

• 
  Ancient Organism Remains
  
  Fossil Layers
  
  Similarities Among Living Organisms
  
  Similarities of Embryos

And Here is a list of things found that confirm/evidence evolution of cars

• 
  Old Car Remains in junkyards
  
  Layers of even older cars beneath
  
  Similarities Among current vehicles on the road
  
  Similarities of underlying chassis

Where do we see any hint of accidental design improvements underlying these observations?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You often refer to the human body being well-designed, but that seems to be incorrect. Our bodies are not meant for the kinds of lives we live (for the most part). So, why would a "designer" design our physical bodies so inefficiently/foolishly?

Again no different than auto design

planned obsolescence!

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's completely different than auto design which you well know because you repeat this bad analogy every time you post in a thread about evolution.

You need some new material.

 

[leibowde84]

And Here is a list of things found that confirm/evidence evolution of cars

• 
  Old Car Remains in junkyards
  
  Layers of even older cars beneath
  
  Similarities Among current vehicles on he road
  
  Similarities of underlying chassis

Where do we see any hint of accidental design improvements underlying these observations?

Lol. Those were links (subject titles) to various explanations concerning specific evidence found and experiments/predictions made that confirm the Theory of Evolution. So, nice try, but just using the subject titles to show how they could be used to show "the evolution of cars" is pretty stupid. I would suggest actually reading the explanations that the links go with. They really do explain the plethora of evidence we have confirming the theory of evolution.

Now, obviously, the ToE has nothing to do with how life came from non-life, as that is "abiogenesis", a completely different hypothesis.

 

[leibowde84]

Again no different than auto design

planned obsolescence!

Oh, there are a great number of reasons why cars aren't designed perfectly. That's obvious. Not sure what that has to do with human beings though, as God has a bit more ability than the Ford Motor Company.

 

[leibowde84]

Again no different than auto design

planned obsolescence!

Btw, it has nothing to do with auto design. Cars are designed by people. You are suggesting that humans were designed by a perfect being. Humans make mistakes ... that's a given. But, are you suggesting that God makes mistakes just as much?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Btw, it has nothing to do with auto design.

So we have:

records of similar past designs no longer in use
similarities among and across current designs
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past designs

all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and functionality, improvement of design


You tell me, am I talking about cars or species?

I don't know either, so.. What do these observations, in and of themselves, tell us about the nature of a set of designs re. ID or naturalistic?

Point being: These observations do not even hint at design improvements being accidental, far less prove it- no way around that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's completely different than auto design which you well know because you repeat this bad analogy every time you post in a thread about evolution.

You need some new material.

It's an old fallacy. assuming that a record of design changes, somehow suggests those changes are undesigned-

The analogy merely demonstrates this, so I don't bring it up any more often than I see the fallacy repeated

IF you have any kind of substantive argument I'm always interested to hear it

 

[jonathan180iq]

Why don't these OPs ever stay involved in their threads? I mean, he obviously say down in front of a computer full of pride and optimism in his rebuttal of the biological sciences, possibly hoping to change not just our hearts but maybe even the whole world... So why run away at the first sign of confrontation? Surely all of that pride and optimism hasn't been so easily squashed, right? Where did he go?

 

[leibowde84]

So we have:

records of similar past designs no longer in use
similarities among and across current designs
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past designs

all with a general tendency towards greater complexity and functionality, improvement of design


You tell me, am I talking about cars or species?

I don't know either, so.. What do these observations, in and of themselves, tell us about the nature of a set of designs re. ID or naturalistic?

Point being: These observations do not even hint at design improvements being accidental, far less prove it- no way around that.

It would be absurdly idiotic if you were speaking about evolution, as DNA, to the best of our knowledge, is not "designed". You are attempting to use circular logic, but the term "design" cannot be reasonably used in this context if you were referring to the ToE. You are welcome to try again without using the word "design". But, you will quickly see that your argument is discredited when you do this.

Further, as I said, it is stupid to use these vague concepts to test the validity of evolution. If you use more specific information regarding the evidence rather than vague subject lines, it would be very easy to differentiate between the ToE and cars. But, because you are refusing to do that, your comparison is irrelevant. It's nothing but a cheap shot, which is obvious because you are refusing to use clarifying terms. Here, I'll help:

records of similar past designs no longer in use (DNA, to the best of our knowledge, is not "designed", so this is merely circular logic, assuming your conclusion in your premise ... a.k.a. no relevant)
similarities among and across current designs (again, can't be evolution because no "design")
similarities of inner/ core structure across current and past designs (again, can't be evolution because there is no "design")

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's an old fallacy. assuming that a record of design changes, somehow suggests those changes are undesigned-

The analogy merely demonstrates this, so I don't bring it up any more often than I see the fallacy repeated

IF you have any kind of substantive argument I'm always interested to hear it

I provided a substantive rebuttal to your analogy the last time we had this discussion.