Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[gnostic]

I agree that science has had "collateral damage" but so too has religion. I fail to see any relevance in either of these facts.

At least with science, there are many scientists are there - for peer review - in which they can discover any fraud, cheat, mistake, etc. The international bodies of science communities oversee which hypotheses and theories are genuinely testable and following the proper protocol or methodology (like the Scientific Method), and which are not. This mean that science have self-correcting mechanism, to ensure that scientific theory is valid and verifiable.

The theory of Evolution have abundance of verifiable evidences to support its explanation, and has been shown to be quite testable and observable. And that's what important, the knowledge that are acquired, and how that knowledge is "explained", go hand-in-hand with evidences, which make the theory objective.

The same can't be said about Abrahamic creationisms, because the religions that professed creationism by some deities, are based on belief and blind faith, not evidences, which (evidences) are essential for objective observation of nature. There are no evidences for god, and no evidences to support that such a god created anything at all.

Nothing in the bible or the Qur'an explained clearly biology of any life. Nothing in these scriptures give clear explanations to Earth science or to astronomy. Vague description in those verses does not count as scientific explanation. Any writer can give vague description about what they observe, but it doesn't count for being accurate or true.

I have heard kids give far better descriptions about the Sun than anything passages found in either the Bible or Qur'an. Part of the problems with those scriptural passages are, that they often crouch in symbolism and metaphors, so that they could have any number of interpretations.

The problems with creationists of some religions is that they treat their scriptures or teachings as if they were historical or scientific, when they are not.

And the way jayjaydee have been evasive or downright deceptive in this thread, I don't trust anything that he say being true or honest.

I think many people have already explained to him what evolution is and isn't, and yet he is either really stubbornly ignorant, or he is being deliberately dishonest.

 

[JayJayDee]

Except there's not one shred of objective evidence to support this, which is not to go so far as to say it couldn't have happened. Just because something may change doesn't mean that a deity did it.

Metis.....nothing comes from nothing. Science knows that all life is the product of pre-existing life...except in the theory of evolution. By pretending not to be interested in abiogenesis, evolution's supporters feel justified in claiming that we don't need a designer in nature...that nature itself is the designer.....but who designed nature? Nature doesn't have a mind.

And let me just point out just how fruitless the above argument is. Let's say that somehow miraculously someone proved that our universe was made by a deity or deities. So, here's my question: So what? That info and $5 can maybe get you a small coffee at Starbucks. Nothing else can be established by this.

So what?
Well it actually changes everything. Those who are tenants on God's earth have done a lousy job at the caretaking role that he assigned to them. When one has lousy tenants who wreak havoc and do immense damage to the Landlord's property....an eviction is sure to follow. That is actually what the Bible says will happen. So you see it does make a difference. Life is a gift, not an accident. It has a purpose and science has not furthered that purpose one little bit. Pretending that the Landlord doesn't exist will not stop the eviction.

We are all still the victims of man's inhumanity to man with wars, horrendous weapons of mass destruction, fanatical terrorism and diseases that are still taking an enormous toll in human suffering.
What has science done to address any of that? What is the point in spending copious amounts of money looking into outer space when we can't even manage our own planet?

We hear of all the so-called breakthrough's in medical science but we wait and they never materialize.

This world is going down the gurgler...we can all see it, yet many people pretend its all going to be fine.......the Bible says it isn't. Without the Creator, we have no future. Man's track record is appalling.....do you want to rely on science to fix what's wrong? Are they the solution or are they part of the problem?

 

[Curious George]

Family....genus...species. This is what is observed. There is not one dot of evidence that is not speculation about what happens either inside or outside of these terms.

Many species of birds, animals and insects exist as separate kinds within a family of creatures. One did not evolve from another. They have stayed within their "kinds" since creation. I have not seen any credible evidence that whales were once land dwelling animals. Or that amphibious creatures are of necessity a transitional form of life between land dwelling creatures and sea creatures. It is all assumed, based on pre-conceived ideas.



Just reminding those who view science as some kind of infallible religion, that science isn't as smart as it claims to be. In fact it does things that are downright shortsighted and stupid at times....and we all end up paying for it.



Define "natural processes"....define "nature". These are terms designed to make people believe that "nature" itself is a some kind of masterful designer.......it isn't. Any more than a computer could be presented to you as a product of random chance. Could it exist without someone to design and manufacture all its components? And someone to put those components in just the right order? Could it function without the expertise of a trained programmer providing it with detailed instructions on all its operations. Would it work without a power source?

Explain to me how the complex human brain can exist as a product of random mutations?
Science has barely scratched the surface when it come to understanding the workings and capacity of our brain and yet we only use a fraction of its capacity. How many living things function perfectly well without one? How do these creatures know how to function without a brain?

How do creatures without ability to think outside of now, know to gather food and store it for their preservation through winter?
How do you explain instinct? How does an animal evolve instinct without 'someone' to program that behavior?
How do birds know how to build a nest specific to their species when they never got to see their parents build one?

Why does a predatory animal that kills the young of other species, care tenderly for her own?
How do birds and butterflies know how to migrate to places they have never been?
I cannot see how evolution can possibly answer those questions. The existence of an intelligent Creator does.



Oh I understand what science claims...but I have seen no proof. I see a lot of people mentioning credentials and studies and experiments but they are all undertaken by those who already support the theory. You don't see room for bias there? You think there is no fraud in science? All their conclusions are based on what they want to see in their "evidence".



Yes...a "theory" tested and supported by examination of said "evidence" by those in the scientific community who all hold it to be a foregone conclusion. Sorry, but that is not a recipe for the telling of the whole truth.

Religious affiliations are pretty meaningless in a field that mocks creation. Who wants to look like the dummy amongst their peers? Peer pressure affects adults too you know.



"Viably" to whom? It explains nothing viably to me. It requires stretches to my imagination that creation does not.



So? All science is, is the study of creation. It examines what is already here in its own limited way. The more science knows, the more it is reminded of what is still to know....so how can you possibly have confidence in its limited conclusions?



No actually, I see you evolutionists clinging to a view that requires as much imagination as you think we have.
You can't prove that macro-evolution ever took place....and we can't produce a Creator for you to prove that he is the designer of all you study.

The irresistible force banging heads with the immovable object. One day we will know for sure.

Pretty sure you tried dancing around my post. I will simplify.

Evolution is a theory.

Evolution coincides with every bit of evidence that we have of lifes existence.

Evolution shows how life has come to be as we know it through processes which we can observe today occurring in nature.

The unanswered questions in evolution do not debunk the theory.

Therefore, evolution offers a viable explanation of life. If you have some proof of how evolution is not possible- then you get to say it is not viable. Until then it is viable because of the aforementioned points.

You admit you cannot entertain a viable theory. This biases your ability to understand.

You have suggested it is not viable I asked why?

Do you see how you are clinging to a view now?

I am not asking you to acknowledge that evolution did occur, I am asking why you refuse it as a possibility. You can talk watchmaker analogies but those have specifically been addressed before.

 

[philbo]

I will give the greatest designer in existence all the accolades. He is the best "explanation" there is. He has the power and the expertise to produce all you see and more. No mindless process can possibly explain the myriad life forms on this planet and their role in its perfect ecology. Perfectly designed systems and symbiosis do not just "happen". They are designed to not only co-exist, but to enhance the existence of other beings and the planet as a whole.

Humans have messed that up...big time.

But a designer doesn't explain why the fossil record looks like it does - not unless he had millions of false starts, kept trying things that didn't quite work, felt satisfied with some truly awful design decisions

99% of everything your designer has come up with over millions of years has failed & died out - his failure rate is jaw-dropping. And so much waste: how much universe has he created to populate one tiny planet amidst billions? I'm astounded you think of living organisms as "perfect design" - way too many flaws, and body parts doing jobs they're clearly not designed for.

Expressions of incredulity are no explanation at all - why does symbiosis not just "happen"? If two organisms get a mutual benefit from working together, why on earth wouldn't that just happen? They only have to try it once & if it works for the ones that give it a go, they'll outperform their uncooperative neighbours & a whole new cycle of symbiosis starts.

Humans have messed up because we have a brain that has evolved in a completely different environment to the one people find themselves in. It's hard to undo a billion years of evolution in a few short generations of civilization.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Explain to me how the complex human brain can exist as a product of random mutations?
Science has barely scratched the surface when it come to understanding the workings and capacity of our brain and yet we only use a fraction of its capacity. How many living things function perfectly well without one? How do these creatures know how to function without a brain?

What do you mean by the bolded part?

 

[metis]

Metis.....nothing comes from nothing. Science knows that all life is the product of pre-existing life...except in the theory of evolution. By pretending not to be interested in abiogenesis, evolution's supporters feel justified in claiming that we don't need a designer in nature...that nature itself is the designer.....but who designed nature? Nature doesn't have a mind.



So what?
Well it actually changes everything. Those who are tenants on God's earth have done a lousy job at the caretaking role that he assigned to them. When one has lousy tenants who wreak havoc and do immense damage to the Landlord's property....an eviction is sure to follow. That is actually what the Bible says will happen. So you see it does make a difference. Life is a gift, not an accident. It has a purpose and science has not furthered that purpose one little bit. Pretending that the Landlord doesn't exist will not stop the eviction.

We are all still the victims of man's inhumanity to man with wars, horrendous weapons of mass destruction, fanatical terrorism and diseases that are still taking an enormous toll in human suffering.
What has science done to address any of that? What is the point in spending copious amounts of money looking into outer space when we can't even manage our own planet?

We hear of all the so-called breakthrough's in medical science but we wait and they never materialize.

This world is going down the gurgler...we can all see it, yet many people pretend its all going to be fine.......the Bible says it isn't. Without the Creator, we have no future. Man's track record is appalling.....do you want to rely on science to fix what's wrong? Are they the solution or are they part of the problem?

Lots of words but nothing of substance. Just because there may be a creator-god(s) does not establish if any specific religion is valid, doesn't establish which scriptures are more valid (if any), doesn't establish which morals are to be taught, doesn't establish what we are to believe beyond the idea that our universe was created, etc. All you have done is to put in your own morality, which I do agree with most of, btw.

And let me just add that, not only is the misuse of science sometimes the problem, so is the misuse of religion sometimes the problem, especially those denominations that take the "my way or the highway" approach.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What those scientists observed back then, was adaptation. They ended up calling it "micro-evolution"......Then when they mentioned "macro-evolution" it sounded for all the world like it must have been the same process, only taken over a much longer period of time.

Look at all of these rodents! They must be part of the same "kind", right?

Here's the smallest rodent, the pygmy jerboas.

Here's the largest rodent, the Capybara:

By your own admission, accepting adaptation, and micro-evolution, you admit that these rodents are all simply adapted rodents of the same kind, correct?

That being the case, let's compare the shared qualities of the rodent and the shared qualities of all mammals....

Look at all of these four-legged mammals. They must be part of the same "kind", right? After all, they each have fur or hair in varying amounts,, mammary glands, produce offspring via live birth, have 4 legs or appendages, have their body temperature regulated by their circulatory system, and so on and so forth. Also of note, every single mammal species on the planet has a tail bone of some sort.

Here's another grouping of Mammals, just to make it easy to see.

Using the logic that you subscribe to in accepting adaptation and micro-evolution, wouldn't you say that each of these variances upon the mammalian "kind" is little more than adaptation to environment. After all, I only see 4 legged creatures adapting to their environment. They aren't changing into other "kinds" though. I mean, I've never seen one of these mammals have a baby that wasn't another mammal....

Here are two more sets of mammals that are incredibly similar. Using the acceptance of adaptation and only considering micro-evolutionary changes, wouldn't you agree that these two species of mammal shared a common ancestor?

After all, they each have fur or hair in varying amounts,, mammary glands, produce offspring via live birth, have 4 legs or appendages, have their body temperature regulated by their circulatory system... these two species of mammal even have incredibly similar body stuctures and facial features. Each of these two species of mammal has a tail bone, despite the fact that they don't have tails. They have similar genitalia. They both nurse their young to approximately the same time period after birth. They both groom their young and are highly protective of them. They both form social networks and units in order to protect the young and old alike. They each use and make tools in order to make their lives easier... the similarities go on and on.

Obviously, these two mammals are only separated by adaptation and micro-evolutionary changes, as they are part of the same "kind".

 

[metis]

As Desmond Morris wrote a book on, we humans are very much "The Naked Ape".

 

[Sapiens]

Or perhaps you are so busy looking down your nose that you fail to recognize what is right under it.

Rather unlikely I being a highly trained and experienced observer and such.

Well, that is not exactly true. Evolution is based on interpretation of data. That interpretation can be skewed by the scientists' own bias. Just as interpretation of the Bible can be skewed the same way to suit someone's pre-conceived notions.

No, all the data leads to one clear conclusion, evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth. The TOE was developed from the raw data there was no bias to be applied since no bias existed. All the pieces fit and all the new pieces that have been discovered over the last century and a half not only fit, but the strengthen the structure. Too bad about your crumbling building supported as it is, at this point, by naught but fairy tales and demonstrable lies.

Define "qualified". If by that term you mean educated in a particular field of science, then you are right....I am "unqualified". But I don't think I need some clever human to tell me what I see with my own eyes. I might not have the same qualifications as your learned self, but I am not stupid.

Maybe not stupid, but defiantly suffering from confirmation bias, also called myside bias, as wiki explains: "the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations)."

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.

We scientists are trained to be on guard against many different sorts of confirmation biases, religionists on the other hand are taught to wallow, revel and celebrate that warping of their cognitive processes.

Nature speaks louder than science. I googled the metamorphosis of a Monarch Butterfly yesterday and watched in amazement how this beautifully decorated caterpillar transformed into an equally beautiful butterfly.....according to science, this incredible process all just happened by random accidental mutations......seriously?

Again the strawman lie. No one ever made that claim, you are just applying the confluence of your ignorance with your cognitive bias to a problem that you don't understand. It brings out the worst in you.

This next one is talking about the refraction of light that creates the iridescence of the blue wings of a Morpho Butterfly.
To mention such exquisite design and evolution in the same sentence is a travesty.

To not be awestruck and the beauty of the result and the simplicity of the process would be a travesty, to hide in the dark cave of a godditit appeal to ignorance is a crime against intelegence.

The Creator does not define "kinds" to your satisfaction....that is a shame.

I asked you, not "the creator" for a definition of "kinds." The shame is that you are willing to carry on this argument but not to present even a simple definition of the word as a framework for discussion, could it be that you do not know what you are talking about, enve on that basic a level?

I don't need a definition to enjoy creation or give praise to the designer of all these "kinds" of creatures.

If you want to stay ignorant, that's true, if you want to discuss the concept with other people (or just think about it intelligently yourself) you must at least be able to define the word that is central to the discussion.

All that beauty is wasted on those creatures except for mating purposes. Humans on the other hand have the unique ability to appreciate beauty for its own sake. This is part of being made in the image of the Creator. We like to look at beautiful things. What survival advantage is there in that? I don't see any animals sitting and admiring the scenery...do you?

I see not evidence that they don't. I do see clear evidence that you do not. As Charles Darwin said in the closing sentence in Origin of Species, "there is grandeur in this view of life."

"Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years"....yes they do, because they are as brainwashed as they believe we are. By whom? By others who hold the same beliefs as they do.
Pot calling the kettle black?

No one but low level technicians take anything for granted. Most biologists think about and question the TOE and all of its processes and ancillaries on a constant basis ... and it continues to stand up, stronger than ever through the constant testing while the creationist view continues to crumble as a direct result of its attempt to engage and test the TOE.

"They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact...." Yes, but if they have built on a weak foundation, there is danger that the whole building will collapse. I believe it will. It is not as secure as they want us to believe it is.

If that is the case you should make the case and collect your well deserved Nobel Prize. If that is not the case you should give up on your bankrupt bronze age mythologies and join the thinking peoples of the world.

The problem lies in man's desire to free himself from obligation to a Creator. Darwin started men thinking in a certain direction, at a time when religion had become somewhat of a joke. Learned men were seeking a more educated approach to the natural world. Darwin himself acknowledged the problems associated with his theory. Men of science have been trying to support it ever since. But the data they have is open to interpretation. Supporters of evolution will read it only one way.

Complete and utter horse puckey from beginning to end. There is not a single supportable argument there, in fact, most all of it is lies, misrepresentations or know-nothing personal opinions

I challenge you to prove that the interpretation of the scientists is valid, beyond dispute. We both know that no one can "prove" anything. Science likes to present macro-evolution as fact...but we know it isn't.

That mission has already been accomplished, demonstrably valid beyond dispute, except by liars and fools.

There was no one around to document how things happened. So educated guessing is as close as science can get.
You may deny this, but we know that it is pure speculation based on what scientists "think" " might have" happened. That is what they say in every instance.

You simply don't understand (surprise, surprise) the niceties demanded of scientific writing.

They do not know for a "fact" that it took place that way at all.

There are no "facts" as you use the term, only very, very, very high probabilities. When your given a choice between a probability of 99.9999999% and 0.0000001%, which do you chose to call a "fact?"

A "kind" is what the Creator says it is. Separate kinds of creatures that will never change into something that they are not designed to be.

Stop playing cutesie and define the word "kind" so that it may be discussed intelligently. If you do not understand the word well enough to define it, then perhaps you should not use it, talking about things that you do not know well enough to define the basic terminology for is a waste of everyone's times and merely serves to display you ignorance of the subject.

Your examples here are classic. The spiders are still spiders, albeit adapted in very attractive colors...the birds are still birds. I guess we can all find another human who is very like us in physical features but totally unrelated......the ants are designed for different roles within the colony, but they are all ants. This demonstrates "kinds" to my way of thinking.

Are all "spiders" the same "kind?" Are all "birds" the same "kind" are dinosaurs the same "kind" as "birds" or are "birds" the same "kind" as dinosaurs? Are goats, giraffes and hippopotami the same "kind?"Give us a definition or stop using the term.

Nothing you presented is convincing.

That's because you are cursed with a wicked case of confirmation bias.

 

[David M]

W The trouble is, the evidence they have for macro-evolution is based solely on conjecture....and solely on adaptation within species for evidence

This is of course conpleteley untrue, Evolution generating a new species (speciation) is an observed fact, it had been documented a number of times.

 

[David M]

Metis.....nothing comes from nothing.

Except God of course.

And quantum physicits will dispute your statement in any case.

 

[Skwim]

This is of course conpleteley untrue, Evolution generating a new species (speciation) is an observed fact, it had been documented a number of times.

Can't take these kinds of declarations seriously. Fundamentalists, JWs in particular, are committed to ignoring everything in defense of evolution and against creationism. They're also committed to repeating garbage such as this over and over again no matter what anyone says. They're trolls of the first class. This is why you'll never get a straight answer from them; they can't afford it. They don't really care what you have to say other than to leave them an opening to spew more garbage. Best thing to do is ignore them.

 

[metis]

This is of course conpleteley untrue, Evolution generating a new species (speciation) is an observed fact, it had been documented a number of times.

This has been explained to JJD many, many times, including with links, but all we get back is the same old lie repeated on and on. It's truly a shame when religion is used as a set of blinders to the Truth.

 

[JayJayDee]

But a designer doesn't explain why the fossil record looks like it does - not unless he had millions of false starts, kept trying things that didn't quite work, felt satisfied with some truly awful design decisions

Like evolutionists, those of us who believe in a Creator could speculate about a lot of things too.....however God does not tell us what transpired before we were residents on this planet...perhaps he will explain one day when we have the capacity to fully understand. We obviously don't at present. Maybe humans are just too puffed up to listen?

You are only guessing yourselves about what happened, so why should it worry us? We can guess too but what does it matter? We don't live in the past, we live in the present and perhaps we should be concentrating a whole lot more on how we can fix past mistakes to make our lives a little less perilous now and in the future?

99% of everything your designer has come up with over millions of years has failed & died out - his failure rate is jaw-dropping.

What makes you think they are failures? Perhaps they served a purpose and once that purpose was achieved, they were no longer necessary? We have no idea why God specifically made anything and you have no idea why things evolved, except for adaptation in circumstances where a change of environment precipitated a necessary superficial change.

The thing is.....neither of us can prove our position in any real way. All we can do is offer our opinions and hope for the best. You believe you are right...and so do we. Time will tell.

And so much waste: how much universe has he created to populate one tiny planet amidst billions?

What makes you think that the universe is wasted? The Creator is not restricted by time so perhaps we are the starting point and he has long term plans for the whole thing? What makes you assume what you do about a being you know nothing about?

If there is no Creator, then there is no purpose to our existence. And no hope for the future apart from the appalling track record of human activity up to this point. Do you trust man to guarantee your future? I certainly don't.

I'm astounded you think of living organisms as "perfect design" - way too many flaws, and body parts doing jobs they're clearly not designed for.

What flaws are you talking about? "Perfect" simply means that something accomplishes the purpose for which it is made. Everything has its place....does science purport know what the purpose of everything living thing is? It has barely scratched the surface in its understanding.

Expressions of incredulity are no explanation at all - why does symbiosis not just "happen"? If two organisms get a mutual benefit from working together, why on earth wouldn't that just happen? They only have to try it once & if it works for the ones that give it a go, they'll outperform their uncooperative neighbours & a whole new cycle of symbiosis starts.

Would you like to take a stab at all the other questions I raised? I would be interested in your answers.

Humans have messed up because we have a brain that has evolved in a completely different environment to the one people find themselves in. It's hard to undo a billion years of evolution in a few short generations of civilization.

Civilisation? You are kidding, aren't you? Look at the world and tell me what civilisation you see? We are going backwards at the rate of knots. The situation on earth is looking rather hopeless......tell me how science will save us from ourselves? It is too busy looking to feather its own nest and puffing up the egos of the ones receiving the accolades for their achievements and discoveries.

God at least has a plan for the future that does not rely on humans to achieve it. I am comforted by that thought....I have faith in it. You can choose to believe whatever you like.

 

[JayJayDee]

What do you mean by the bolded part?

When we see the capacity of the human brain in certain "gifted" individuals, we can see clearly that there is no reason why all humans should not have these abilities. "Genius" standards in math, science, art, music etc. demonstrate the potential capacity that we should all enjoy. But most of us fall well below these standards.

The funny thing is, we all want them and are frustrated by our present limitations. We all have a perception of the perfect outcome for our achievements, but disappointingly fall short of them. Why do we collectively feel we can and should do better? Why do other people's imperfections and shortcomings annoy us? If we are the products of evolution, why should we have any expectations at all?

Why are humans the only creatures on the planet who can plan future events based entirely on choices made by analysing data? At what point did the animals swap instinct for cognitive planning? Was it then that we ceased to be animals? Can you pinpoint when that happened?

 

[JayJayDee]

Look at all of these rodents! They must be part of the same "kind", right?

Here's the smallest rodent, the pygmy jerboas.

Here's the largest rodent, the Capybara:

By your own admission, accepting adaptation, and micro-evolution, you admit that these rodents are all simply adapted rodents of the same kind, correct?

No actually, that is not what I have said at all.

Just because something has adapted to its environment doesn't mean that individual members of the same family were not individually created. Adaptation is small changes to facilitate a changed environment or food source. To say that all these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor is ridiculous. These are all part of the rodent family. Species within a kind. Just as there are many species within the cat family....or the ape family.

Trees, vegetables, fruit, grass and other forms of greenery are all species within the family of living things that feed other living things. Which came first?

That being the case, let's compare the shared qualities of the rodent and the shared qualities of all mammals....

Look at all of these four-legged mammals. They must be part of the same "kind", right? After all, they each have fur or hair in varying amounts,, mammary glands, produce offspring via live birth, have 4 legs or appendages, have their body temperature regulated by their circulatory system, and so on and so forth. Also of note, every single mammal species on the planet has a tail bone of some sort.

Here's another grouping of Mammals, just to make it easy to see.

Using the logic that you subscribe to in accepting adaptation and micro-evolution, wouldn't you say that each of these variances upon the mammalian "kind" is little more than adaptation to environment. After all, I only see 4 legged creatures adapting to their environment. They aren't changing into other "kinds" though. I mean, I've never seen one of these mammals have a baby that wasn't another mammal....

Since you have begun your rhetoric with a false premise, this is rather a stupid argument even by evolutionary standards. Not all mammals are related or descended from the same original parent. This is more akin to what you believe...not what I believe. You have twisted everything I said.

Here are two more sets of mammals that are incredibly similar. Using the acceptance of adaptation and only considering micro-evolutionary changes, wouldn't you agree that these two species of mammal shared a common ancestor?

After all, they each have fur or hair in varying amounts,, mammary glands, produce offspring via live birth, have 4 legs or appendages, have their body temperature regulated by their circulatory system... these two species of mammal even have incredibly similar body stuctures and facial features. Each of these two species of mammal has a tail bone, despite the fact that they don't have tails. They have similar genitalia. They both nurse their young to approximately the same time period after birth. They both groom their young and are highly protective of them. They both form social networks and units in order to protect the young and old alike. They each use and make tools in order to make their lives easier... the similarities go on and on.

Obviously, these two mammals are only separated by adaptation and micro-evolutionary changes, as they are part of the same "kind".

They both have the same designer and Creator. We are both formed from the same basic materials of which we all bear the evidence in our DNA. You just interpret the evidence differently to us.

If you want to believe that you descended from apes, go right ahead......I believe that each species is individually hand crafted by a brilliant designer and that each has its place in the incredible ecology set in place by the same brilliant scientist and mathematician. This includes the ability to adapt for self preservation. It doesn't include all life evolving from a single celled organism that happened to magically pop into existence by accident and then over millions of years, turn into all we see by a multitude of other very fortunate accidents involving random mutations......Now that is a complete fairy story.

Your suggestions in that post are just silly....and nothing close to what I believe.

 

[Bunyip]

No actually, that is not what I have said at all.

Just because something has adapted to its environment doesn't mean that individual members of the same family were not individually created. Adaptation is small changes to facilitate a changed environment or food source. To say that all these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor is ridiculous. These are all part of the rodent family. Species within a kind. Just as there are many species within the cat family....or the ape family.

Trees, vegetables, fruit, grass and other forms of greenery are all species within the family of living things that feed other living things. Which came first?



Since you have begun your rhetoric with a false premise, this is rather a stupid argument even by evolutionary standards. Not all mammals are related or descended from the same original parent. This is more akin to what you believe...not what I believe. You have twisted everything I said.



They both have the same designer and Creator. We are both formed from the same basic materials of which we all bear the evidence in our DNA. You just interpret the evidence differently to us.

If you want to believe that you descended from apes, go right ahead......I believe that each species is individually hand crafted by a brilliant designer and that each has its place in the incredible ecology set in place by the same brilliant scientist and mathematician. This includes the ability to adapt for self preservation. It doesn't include all life evolving from a single celled organism that happened to magically pop into existence by accident and then over millions of years, turn into all we see by a multitude of other very fortunate accidents involving random mutations......Now that is a complete fairy story.

Your suggestions in that post are just silly....and nothing close to what I believe.

You are repeating the same falsehoods over and over. What is the point?

 

[shawn001]

JayJayDEE, we know for a fact there was no Oxygen atmosphere to breath on Earth when the Earth formed and it did not have Van Allen belts.

Lets start with the Oxygen, where did it come from?

And second if there are no Van Allen belts what happens to life on the planet?

 

[Sapiens]

No actually, that is not what I have said at all.

Just because something has adapted to its environment doesn't mean that individual members of the same family were not individually created. Adaptation is small changes to facilitate a changed environment or food source. To say that all these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor is ridiculous. These are all part of the rodent family. Species within a kind. Just as there are many species within the cat family....or the ape family.

Trees, vegetables, fruit, grass and other forms of greenery are all species within the family of living things that feed other living things. Which came first?



Since you have begun your rhetoric with a false premise, this is rather a stupid argument even by evolutionary standards. Not all mammals are related or descended from the same original parent. This is more akin to what you believe...not what I believe. You have twisted everything I said.



They both have the same designer and Creator. We are both formed from the same basic materials of which we all bear the evidence in our DNA. You just interpret the evidence differently to us.

If you want to believe that you descended from apes, go right ahead......I believe that each species is individually hand crafted by a brilliant designer and that each has its place in the incredible ecology set in place by the same brilliant scientist and mathematician. This includes the ability to adapt for self preservation. It doesn't include all life evolving from a single celled organism that happened to magically pop into existence by accident and then over millions of years, turn into all we see by a multitude of other very fortunate accidents involving random mutations......Now that is a complete fairy story.

Your suggestions in that post are just silly....and nothing close to what I believe.

So what is it that you believe? Please define "kind" or tell us that you can't.

 

[David M]

This has been explained to JJD many, many times, including with links, but all we get back is the same old lie repeated on and on. It's truly a shame when religion is used as a set of blinders to the Truth.

I expected as much but egregious falsehoods should always be challenged, for the benefit of the peanut gallery at least.