Argumentum ad populum

[Subduction Zone]

"There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion."
Okay. So... It irks me, but I manage a smile.
You always seem to make things so convenient for yourself. You make the example I use so distorted.

What you said there is nowhere near to what I said. However, let's consider your last sentence - "There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion."
Here is what I said...
Scientists believe ABCD about what they are seeing on XYZ.
Scientists believe lack of genetic diversity is the cause for what they are seeing on the mass and sudden extinction of the short haired bumblebee.
Scientists believe crustacean evolves into a crab-like form from a non-crab-like form based on what they are seeing in their study of corresponding symmetry in the organisms.
Scientists believe the universe is about 13.8 billion years old based on what they are seeing as the best fit to Planck 2015 data.
Scientists believe there is a definite branching order at the base of the clade Bacteria based on what they are seeing about the order of phyla in Phylogenetic tree.
Scientists believe muscles cells evolved more than once based on what they are seeing about germ layers from which they believe muscles evolved.

I could go on a couple hours, but I'm tired.
I believe the Bible is true based on what I am seeing in the internal evidence - overall harmony, candor, practical and timeless wisdom, and external evidence - historical agreement, scientific support.

Since I am assuming, and not reaching a conclusion... according to Polymath257, then to be fair the scientists are assuming, as opposed to reaching conclusions.

I also said,..
Scientist assume that A is the case, when B may be the case.
Examples ...
Scientists assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction, when the cause was not yet known.
Scientists assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, when in fact, this heat had been continually replenished.
Scientists assumed... You get the point.

You disagree with me, is all. You consider both assumptions, so I really don't know what a conclusion would amount to be, in your view.
I understand a conclusion to be, as it says here...
a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

If you have a different definition that would help me understand what you are saying, then I would like to see it.


So you say, but I don't see how that is true.


That is far from the truth.
I know houses don't build themselves, but people do.
It doesn't mean that if I see houses building themselves the next minute, I would not accept that I know different.
Are you deliberately trying to be difficult?


I suggest you have not really investigated. I believe you make that claim. I assume I am right.


We wholeheartedly disagree.
I have investigated, and have come to a level-headed conclusion.


So you say. I don't see what you see.


Please see my first post here - What is Design?


There is no evidence that mutations along with anything "produce high levels of complexity".
Please provide one of those evidences.


So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?


If you are using assumption in in terms of not being able to prove a conclusion, then that applies to practically everything. Is this what you are saying?


Of course. Why do you assume that one who becomes a Christian, suddenly stops thinking and lose all sense of reason? Do you think this guy does not analyse and question things?

Why did he leave more than 20 years of Atheism to become Christian?
For one thing... He was open minded, and investigated.
This is just one of many.

I was searching for the post where you claimed the scriptures were from the 6th to 5th century BC.
Maybe if I am wrong about what you said. You can correct me.
I found opinion that says earlier.
Doesn't matter to me though, these opinions. Why should it?

Let me cut to the chase. Scientists are not allowed to assume. It is not a matter of mere belief, which appears to be all that you have. They have to propose ideas and then test them. There must be a reasonable test that can show them to be wrong.

And this is where creationists fail and keep themselves in the realm of mere belief. Creationists tend to be afraid to create falsifiable models. That means that creationists cannot know and can only believe. It appears that you are projecting your sins upon others. Also, just because you do not understand the science does not mean that they assumed.

You have had that false claim against scientists far too often. Every time that you use the word "assume" you are making a claim about another and you place the burden of proof upon yourself. How are you going to support that claim when you do not understand the science?

 

[Polymath257]

"There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion."
Okay. So... It irks me, but I manage a smile.
You always seem to make things so convenient for yourself. You make the example I use so distorted.

What you said there is nowhere neiar to what I said. However, let's consider your last sentence - "There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion."
Here is what I said...
Scientists believe ABCD about what they are seeing on XYZ.
Scientists believe lack of genetic diversity is the cause for what they are seeing on the mass and sudden extinction of the short haired bumblebee.
Scientists believe crustacean evolves into a crab-like form from a non-crab-like form based on what they are seeing in their study of corresponding symmetry in the organisms.
Scientists believe the universe is about 13.8 billion years old based on what they are seeing as the best fit to Planck 2015 data.
Scientists believe there is a definite branching order at the base of the clade Bacteria based on what they are seeing about the order of phyla in Phylogenetic tree.
Scientists believe muscles cells evolved more than once based on what they are seeing about germ layers from which they believe muscles evolved.

And *why* do they believe these things? They do so because of testable theories that also yield this information.

I could go on a couple hours, but I'm tired.
I believe the Bible is true based on what I am seeing in the internal evidence - overall harmony, candor, practical and timeless wisdom, and external evidence - historical agreement, scientific support.

Internal consistency is a low bar. And the Bible most definitely does NOT pass the test of either historical agreement or scientific support. Do you want examples?

Since I am assuming, and not reaching a conclusion... according to Polymath257, then to be fair the scientists are assuming, as opposed to reaching conclusions.

I also said,..
Scientist assume that A is the case, when B may be the case.
Examples ...
Scientists assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction, when the cause was not yet known.
Scientists assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, when in fact, this heat had been continually replenished.
Scientists assumed... You get the point.

You disagree with me, is all. You consider both assumptions, so I really don't know what a conclusion would amount to be, in your view.
I understand a conclusion to be, as it says here...
a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

Which is what happens in science, showing your 'assumption' claim is wrong. I would also add that conclusions are based on evidence supporting the reasoning.

So, what is the reasoning used to support the accuracy of the Bible?

If you have a different definition that would help me understand what you are saying, then I would like to see it.

So you say, but I don't see how that is true.

OK, if it is a conclusion, as opposed to an assumption, what is the reasoning that supports that conclusion? If I show that reasoning is flawed, are you willing to say that it is wrong? Because if not, then you aren't basing the belief on reasoning, but on faith (which is the opposite of reason).

That is far from the truth.
I know houses don't build themselves, but people do.
It doesn't mean that if I see houses building themselves the next minute, I would not accept that I know different.
Are you deliberately trying to be difficult?

And we khttp://192.168.1.1/applyuser.cginow that biological organisms *do* build themselves (well, with appropriate supplies--like food, water, and air). So the analogy with houses is flawed.

I suggest you have not really investigated. I believe you make that claim. I assume I am right.

And you would be wrong. I have studied the history of the texts in the Bible, the archeology of it. I have read the Bible and also many of the apocrypha. I have studied the debates concerning how the Bible was assembled.

We wholeheartedly disagree.
I have investigated, and have come to a level-headed conclusion.

Well, might I suggest that it was a conclusion based on faulty evidence?

So you say. I don't see what you see.

Well, let's start with a question. Do you understand how mutation and selection can lead to complexity without a designer?

Please see my first post here - What is Design?

And we basically agree on the definition. But you haven't given any criteria for distinguishing something that has been designed from something that hasn't unless you already know there was a likely designer.

There is no evidence that mutations along with anything "produce high levels of complexity".
Please provide one of those evidences.

Mutations with selection. Look at any number of programs or 'designs' produced by genetic algorithms. Look at any number of simulations pf evolution to determine what parameters are relevant.

So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?

So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?
Not necessarily. Humans can also be intelligent designers. In fact, we don't know of many intelligent designers that *aren't* human, do we?

If you are using assumption in in terms of not being able to prove a conclusion, then that applies to practically everything. Is this what you are saying?

I am saying it is a conclusion that is not based on logic or evidence, but instead on biases and fears.

Of course. Why do you assume that one who becomes a C

So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?
hristian, suddenly stops thinking and lose all sense of reason? Do you think this guy does not analyse and question things?

I do not assume that. The man who was going to be my physics advisor was a strong Christian, but also understood that species evolve and the universe is billions, not thousands of years old. But those who go to the point of rejecting science have, in deed, lost their se

So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?
nse of reason.

So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?

Why did he leave more than 20 years of Atheism to become Christian?
For one thing... He was open minded, and investigated.
This is just one of many.

As opposed to how many going the other direction? But in his case, he clearly didn't really look at *all* of the evidence.

I was searching for the post where you claimed the scriptures were from the 6th to 5th century BC.
Maybe if I am wrong about what you said. You can correct me.
I found opinion that says earlier.
Doesn't matter to me though, these opinions. Why should it?

Well, the problem isn't so much when they were written, but the fact that they have incorrect historical information, primarily because they were written from the perspective of a particular time. The OT talks of towns that didn't exist yet, didn't know of events that happened in that area just a bit earlier, etc. There is a fair amount of historical accuracy *after* the temple period, but prior to that it is mostly mythology.

 

[nPeace]

I think I need a breather.

And *why* do they believe these things? They do so because of testable theories that also yield this information.

So as long as a testable theory is used, the believer does not assume even if the conclusion is wrong. Yes?
So one who tests the validity of the Bible, and believes it, assumes. Why?

 

[Thief]

And that may not be correct. There are many uncaused events.

that you don't see a cause ...doesn't mean there isn't one

 

[nPeace]

Internal consistency is a low bar. And the Bible most definitely does NOT pass the test of either historical agreement or scientific support. Do you want examples?

Does it matter? People are constantly giving examples of how claimed evidence does not support scientific theories. Does it matter? They give examples too.
It matters not. Nor is it relevant to whether something is an assumption, or conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

Which is what happens in science, showing your 'assumption' claim is wrong. I would also add that conclusions are based on evidence supporting the reasoning.

I made no assumption claim. Where... and what do you mean by, it is wrong?

So, what is the reasoning used to support the accuracy of the Bible?

There are many lines of evidence supporting the validity of the Bible.
However, one line of reasoning, is the overall harmony of the Bible, considering the fact that there were many writers who lived at various periods of time.

OK, if it is a conclusion, as opposed to an assumption, what is the reasoning that supports that conclusion? If I show that reasoning is flawed, are you willing to say that it is wrong? Because if not, then you aren't basing the belief on reasoning, but on faith (which is the opposite of reason).

A conclusion reached does not become something other than a conclusion, based on if it is right or wrong.
We reach conclusions, by reasoning on the facts, or observations before us.

 

[nPeace]

And we khttp://192.168.1.1/applyuser.cginow that biological organisms *do* build themselves (well, with appropriate supplies--like food, water, and air). So the analogy with houses is flawed.

I know of nothing that builds itself.
If your claim is true, you would give me that information, I'm sure. ...but... your claim is not true.

And you would be wrong. I have studied the history of the texts in the Bible, the archeology of it. I have read the Bible and also many of the apocrypha. I have studied the debates concerning how the Bible was assembled.

People have read stuff. That does not mean they investigated.

Well, might I suggest that it was a conclusion based on faulty evidence?

You may, but I consider your suggestion an uninformed one.

 

[nPeace]

Well, let's start with a question. Do you understand how mutation and selection can lead to complexity without a designer?

http://192.168.1.1/applyuser.cgi

Nupe. I understand it never happen.
However I do understand that some promote the idea, although it is mere speculation.

And we basically agree on the definition. But you haven't given any criteria for distinguishing something that has been designed from something that hasn't unless you already know there was a likely designer.

Let me ask. Is there such a thing as design? Can you identify design? How can you identify design?

Mutations with selection. Look at any number of programs or 'designs' produced by genetic algorithms. Look at any number of simulations pf evolution to determine what parameters are relevant.

So you have no example. I knew that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I need a breather.



So as long as a testable theory is used, the believer does not assume even if the conclusion is wrong. Yes?
So one who tests the validity of the Bible, and believes it, assumes. Why?

In the sciences one always has to have an open mind that a theory may be wrong. But when a theory is tested and confirmed millions of times it is pretty hard to think that it has a serious flaw in it. A sane person would act as if the theory was correct until there was evidence to the contrary. And only the truly insane would disregard all of the evidence supporting that theory and believe a concept with no scientific evidence at all.

So once again, no assumptions in science in the way that you use the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nupe. I understand it never happen.
However I do understand that some promote the idea, although it is mere speculation.

Really? Prove the speculation. Why do creationists use terms that make them look like liars? When you accuse others of "speculation" or "assumption" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. If you cannot support those accusations you look very bad indeed.

Let me ask. Is there such a thing as design? Can you identify design? How can you identify design?

It is easy to identify man made design, that is because we have experience with it. As to if there was a design from some outside intelligence the burden of proof for that design once again lies upon the people making the positive claim. Scientists will rightly say that no one has presented any scientific evidence for a designer. There is no rational reason to believe in one.

So you have no example. I knew that.

What are you talking about? He gave you some.

 

[joelr]

I made no assumption claim. Where... and what do you mean by, it is wrong?


There are many lines of evidence supporting the validity of the Bible.
However, one line of reasoning, is the overall harmony of the Bible, considering the fact that there were many writers who lived at various periods of time.

There are no lines of evidence. Harmony among a myth written over centuries is not evidence. As if the Vedic scriptures don't have harmony?

The Hindu see their creator in all aspects of reality as well:

"There is an intelligent design hidden in the universe. Whether it is the structure of an atom, composition of a cell or configuration of a star system, we can see this intelligent design hidden everywhere. Even in the seemingly random process of evolution and our births and deaths, we can see the hand of intelligent design playing its dutiful role. Science may examine the structure and the configuration of matter and understand how things are made or composed. But it cannot explain why things are the way they are. Science will never ever be able to answer it correctly, because science cannot deal with the Cause of the causes.
The Vedic people saw the hand of the intelligent design hidden in every aspect of the universe and considered it to be responsible for the orderliness of creation. They saw hidden in the entire creation a certain mysterious order of things and called it 'Rta' (pronounced as ritha)."


Except to them it's obvious Krishna created the universe, oh guess what, he's a son of god too!

"The original Personality of Godhead Vāsudeva, or Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is famous as the son of King Vasudeva or King Nanda,"


Evolution can be wrong all day and no myth is suddenly going to become real.

 

[Polymath257]

Nupe. I understand it never happen.
However I do understand that some promote the idea, although it is mere speculation.

Like I said, look into any number of computer simulations of evolution. They inevitably show increased complexity.

Let me ask. Is there such a thing as design? Can you identify design? How can you identify design?

Yes, of course there are some things that are designed. Yes, it is possible to detect design.

That is done by knowing what the natural processes can do and comparing an artifact to such. For example, a crushed bone will have a different sort of fracture depending on whether it was produced by tool use or naturally. We can tell this by looking at naturally crushed bones versus intentionally crushed bones.

But what we know is that complexity alone is not sufficient to deduce design. In fact, it is often *simplicity* that demonstrates design: nature is oftenmore complex than necessary and designed items tend to have nicer lines, sharp corners, etc.

Complexity naturally arises through feedback loops in many situations.

So you have no example. I knew that.

computer simulations of evolution 2 - Video Search Results

 

[nPeace]

Like I said, look into any number of computer simulations of evolution. They inevitably show increased complexity.

Just as I said. It's speculated.
There is no example you can show of mutations resulting in "highly complex organism". These sims show nothing.

Yes, of course there are some things that are designed. Yes, it is possible to detect design.

That is done by knowing what the natural processes can do and comparing an artifact to such. For example, a crushed bone will have a different sort of fracture depending on whether it was produced by tool use or naturally. We can tell this by looking at naturally crushed bones versus intentionally crushed bones.

In other words comparing the workings of that object with what we know about design, right?
There we go.

But what we know is that complexity alone is not sufficient to deduce design. In fact, it is often *simplicity* that demonstrates design: nature is oftenmore complex than necessary and designed items tend to have nicer lines, sharp corners, etc.

Complexity naturally arises through feedback loops in many situations.

I already explained that, it's not about complexity. Complexity can help, as I said, but it is not necessary.

computer simulations of evolution 2 - Video Search Results

What is this about? More sims? I did not ask for scientists toys. I asked for "evidence that mutations along with anything can "produce high levels of complexity".
Please provide one of those evidences.
It's apparent you cannot, for obvious reasons... There are none.

So, I am interested in your answer to my question. Any reason why you did not answer?

 

[Polymath257]

Just as I said. It's speculated.
There is no example you can show of mutations resulting in "highly complex organism". These sims show nothing.

Actually, they do. They show that selection along with mutation, in a simulated environment, can produce complexity.

In other words comparing the workings of that object with what we know about design, right?
There we go.

Yes, so what do we know about design of life that is relevant? Nothing.

I already explained that, it's not about complexity. Complexity can help, as I said, but it is not necessary.

OK, so what, precisely, is the way to test? Suppose I give you something. how do you determine if it was designed or not?

What is this about? More sims? I did not ask for scientists toys. I asked for "evidence that mutations along with anything can "produce high levels of complexity".
Please provide one of those evidences.
It's apparent you cannot, for obvious reasons... There are none.

These are simulations where there are mutations and a selection procedure. They produce high levels of complexity. The reason is that mutation and selection do this *consistently*.

So, I am interested in your answer to my question. Any reason why you did not answer?

What is the test for the Bible? Internal consistency? That happens whether or not it is true. And the Bible most definitely does NOT give reliable historical or scientific information.

if you can come up with a *valid* test for the Bible, then it could be a conclusion as opposed to an assumption. But all I have ever seen is 'because it makes my life better' (which isn't exclusive to truth), or 'it is so wonderfully put together' (which doesn't imply truth) or 'it is so accurate' (which it is not).

 

[nPeace]

Actually, they do. They show that selection along with mutation, in a simulated environment, can produce complexity.



Yes, so what do we know about design of life that is relevant? Nothing.



OK, so what, precisely, is the way to test? Suppose I give you something. how do you determine if it was designed or not?



These are simulations where there are mutations and a selection procedure. They produce high levels of complexity. The reason is that mutation and selection do this *consistently*.



What is the test for the Bible? Internal consistency? That happens whether or not it is true. And the Bible most definitely does NOT give reliable historical or scientific information.

if you can come up with a *valid* test for the Bible, then it could be a conclusion as opposed to an assumption. But all I have ever seen is 'because it makes my life better' (which isn't exclusive to truth), or 'it is so wonderfully put together' (which doesn't imply truth) or 'it is so accurate' (which it is not).

The computer program directs the mutations. This is not an example of what we observed in nature.
I see lots of sims that do not demonstrate what happens in real life - like "The Three Little Pigs".

Of course, it depends on what object you give me.
However, I look for these...
Does it have a set of components, existing in a particular environment, specifically required to carry out specific functions, that are intended, or required to reach specific goals?
If the object meet these specifics, I would say that is design.

You have not given me any legit example. I won't ask anymore.

So you are saying, it is not possible to test whether the Bible is true or not. So people can only assume that it is, or isn't - like you can only assume whether I am hungry or not, but I don't have to assume, become I know when I am hungry from when I am not, so I can leave you with your assumptions, while I get along with what I can determine for myself.
Sounds good.

It reminds me of what Matthew 5:3 says.
Yes they are some that will be totally clueless of things they demonstrate they have no interest in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The computer program directs the mutations. This is not an example of what we observed in nature.
I see lots of sims that do not demonstrate what happens in real life - like "The Three Little Pigs".

Of course, it depends on what object you give me.
However, I look for these...
Does it have a set of components, existing in a particular environment, specifically required to carry out specific functions, that are intended, or required to reach specific goals?
If the object meet these specifics, I would say that is design.

You have not given me any legit example. I won't ask anymore.

So you are saying, it is not possible to test whether the Bible is true or not. So people can only assume that it is, or isn't - like you can only assume whether I am hungry or not, but I don't have to assume, become I know when I am hungry from when I am not, so I can leave you with your assumptions, while I get along with what I can determine for myself.
Sounds good.

It reminds me of what Matthew 5:3 says.
Yes they are some that will be totally clueless of things they demonstrate they have no interest in.

Not being able to understand a legitimate example does not mean that one has not been given. Meanwhile you have not been able to support your claim of speculation at all.I

As for the Bible the burden of proof is upon those who believe in it. They are the ones that need to develop a reasonable test of it. If they can't then their beliefs appear to be irrational.

 

[Polymath257]

The computer program directs the mutations. This is not an example of what we observed in nature.
I see lots of sims that do not demonstrate what happens in real life - like "The Three Little Pigs".

Huh? The mutations are randomly generated. In the really good simulations, you use a really good random number generator.

Of course, it depends on what object you give me.
However, I look for these...
Does it have a set of components, existing in a particular environment, specifically required to carry out specific functions, that are intended, or required to reach specific goals?
If the object meet these specifics, I would say that is design.

There are two problems:
1. You need to show intent. or that there is a specific goal.
2. Evolution can produce systems that exist in a particular environment that are well adapted and so carry out behavior that works well in that environment. This can *look* like intent.

This is why it is so tricky to differentiate 'design' from 'evolved'.

Now, it *is* possible to look at the type of functions we see in design and in evolved systems. Since evolution works by adaptation, we expect to see old parts being used in new ways, that then adapt more to the new ways over generations.

In design, we expect to see parts used across the range of species, even where 'similar' species do not have them.

So, as an example, all birds will have feathers, but no mammal will. Even if feathers would be really helpful to a mammal and to be expected from a good design, they won't be there. On the other hand, all mammals will have three bones in their middle ears. This is true even if they are deaf. A 'design' wouldn't have the bones there at all. But in evolution, things tend to stick around if not actually harmful.

The actual pattern of living things shows the evolutionary pattern and NOT the design pattern.

You have not given me any legit example. I won't ask anymore.

You have refused to even look at what is happening int he examples.

So you are saying, it is not possible to test whether the Bible is true or not. So people can only assume that it is, or isn't - like you can only assume whether I am hungry or not, but I don't have to assume, become I know when I am hungry from when I am not, so I can leave you with your assumptions, while I get along with what I can determine for myself.
Sounds good.

Nope. It *is* possible to test to see if the Bible is reliable. Check it against history, archeology, and science. if it passes, then it is at least somewhat reliable. But, in fact, it doesn't pass these tests.

It reminds me of what Matthew 5:3 says.
Yes they are some that will be totally clueless of things they demonstrate they have no interest in.

Sounds to me like most creationists when talking about evolution.

 

[joelr]

So you are saying, it is not possible to test whether the Bible is true or not. So people can only assume that it is, or isn't - like you can only assume whether I am hungry or not, but I don't have to assume, become I know when I am hungry from when I am not, so I can leave you with your assumptions, while I get along with what I can determine for myself.
Sounds good.

It reminds me of what Matthew 5:3 says.
Yes they are some that will be totally clueless of things they demonstrate they have no interest in.

He isn't saying that at all.
We have extremely good evidence that there are people and that they are sometimes hungry and sometimes not.
Both are reasonable assumptions.

Religions, alien abductions and miracles from Sai Baba, even though attested by millions of Hindu in the 19th century, are not reasonable.

Does anyone actually know the real reasons some Christians don't accept evolution? Obviously it's because of some passages in scripture but which ones?
I'm not sure why they don't just say - I believe the bible and it says evolution is wrong so therefore that's my reason? Why the charade about "it's not proven by science yet blah blah..."
If they believe so much why not just say "this is my proof, words in scripture don't match with this scientific theory therefore science has it wrong"?

 

[Thief]

If they believe so much why not just say "this is my proof, words in scripture don't match with this scientific theory therefore science has it wrong"?

I believe in God..because of science

people do what monkeys do.....snatch/grab.....run away

most people grab what the congregation nods their heads to.....
then they go home

I seriously consider my fellowman to be half a step more....than primate

I realize the critique is harsh
but yeah

too much head nodding.....and the head is empty

I am dismayed that people don't hear the rattle
like dried beans in a shell

maracas!

 

[nPeace]

Huh? The mutations are randomly generated. In the really good simulations, you use a really good random number generator.

You do know what a computer program is, don't you?
Speculating, as you are assuming this is how the real world will work. I am not interested in these sims.
If we were to simulate an intelligent creator, it would be scoffed at, and criticized.
Case closed. You can have your final say on your sims.
You have shown nothing. Thank you.

There are two problems:
1. You need to show intent. or that there is a specific goal.
2. Evolution can produce systems that exist in a particular environment that are well adapted and so carry out behavior that works well in that environment. This can *look* like intent.

This is why it is so tricky to differentiate 'design' from 'evolved'.

Now, it *is* possible to look at the type of functions we see in design and in evolved systems. Since evolution works by adaptation, we expect to see old parts being used in new ways, that then adapt more to the new ways over generations.

In design, we expect to see parts used across the range of species, even where 'similar' species do not have them.

So, as an example, all birds will have feathers, but no mammal will. Even if feathers would be really helpful to a mammal and to be expected from a good design, they won't be there. On the other hand, all mammals will have three bones in their middle ears. This is true even if they are deaf. A 'design' wouldn't have the bones there at all. But in evolution, things tend to stick around if not actually harmful.

The actual pattern of living things shows the evolutionary pattern and NOT the design pattern.

You see, these are problems, for those who hold to the belief in evolution.
There are not problems for those who believe in creation.
You apply your theory, for which you do not show evolution, yet when we apply creation, you want us to show intent. Funny.
You don't have a starting point - you are still working on it, and you don't have a process that works - it's full of problems, and a major assumption that micro will lead to full macro.
You see evolution. I don't.
I see creation. You don't.
Seems to me we are committing no crime, but experiencing what is a part of life.
No one has to die because people don't see eye to eye, and no one has to believe as the other person does.
That's life.

You have refused to even look at what is happening int he examples.

That is not true. Here is a perfect example of assumption.
How many would you like me to look at? Should I look at the full page? Seriously? I don't have time to waste... especially not on fantasy.

Nope. It *is* possible to test to see if the Bible is reliable. Check it against history, archeology, and science. if it passes, then it is at least somewhat reliable. But, in fact, it doesn't pass these tests.

So now we can test it. It is no longer based on 'because it makes my life better'. It can validly be tested.
Fine. You don't seem to be consistent in what you say, but I am flexible.
So then I believe we have carried out a valid test.
As for the results, the results do not matter. What matters, is that if we carry out a valid test, we can reach a conclusion - wrong or right. Just like with the evolution theory - wrong or right.

Sounds to me like most creationists when talking about evolution.

I'm glad you see the comparison. I had it in mind all along.