Just Accidental?

[Jose Fly]

The intent of this portrayal was to describe a graded order of descent. That is disingenuous, to say the least.

It is? Do you mean it depicts evolution as producing a ladder-like "order of descent" rather than a branching bush pattern?

Can you please cite the textbook that image came from?

 

[Shad]

Science gives credit to what God created, rather than to the Creator himself. Eliminating God has opened the floodgates of a world where humans are led to believe that they are nothing but animals, answerable to no one.

Science removed "God did it" as it upset basic axioms such as uniformity. For example two people have the same cancer. There are a number of medical reasons as to the cause of said cancer. With "God did it" anyone can claim that person A has cancer due to the medical reasons while person B has cancer because "God did it" Another example. If someone claims to have flown without any mechanic or structural aid but fails to reproduce later the act of flying they can easily claim "God did it" in event 1 but not for event 2. The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable thus useless. Beside this people used "God did it" for all sorts of claims and answers which have been shown to be wrong over and over. Black Plague? God is punishing people! It has nothing to do with rats! Trust us because well... God did it!

 

[Deeje]

Deeje believes in the Bible. I just want to know where in the Bible it says that "kinds" can't evolve into different "kinds". Whatever "kinds" are.

I am sure that you are not one bit interested in the answer.....but I will give it to you anyway....

The Bible simply says that "God created"....everything....as is. A construction crew doesn't tell suppliers to dump a load of bricks, pipes and electrical cable on a building site and then expect them to evolve themselves into a house with plumbing and electrical connection with voice command, computer controlled features all in place........do they?

Creatures don't build themselves either. That is such a difficult concept apparently.

Whatsamatta....?

Can't prove God's existence "scientifically"? You can't prove evolution ever happened "scientifically" either.

A "kind" is a creature that seeks its own "kind" as a mate, hence the mandate to "be fruitful and fill the earth"....."according to [their] KIND" ...another extremely difficult thing to process, is it?

No university degrees required......it is something that can be observed with your own eyes.

 

[Deeje]

No, what you've done is look at sources that give introductory, generalized broad overviews of the subject, and then declared that if that's all there is to it, it's not a strong case.

From what I have read, there is no case at all....not even a weak one. All science has is assumptions about what "might" link one fossil to another, millions of years apart, with absolutely no proof whatsoever that a link even exists outside of their imaginings.

It's like reading the Cliff Notes version of a Dickens novel and then deciding that Charles Dickens wasn't a very good writer.

Or an unbelieving scientist reading the Bible looking for the DNA sequencing.

Because you're critiquing their work!

I am not critiquing their work...I am critiquing their assumptions....big difference. Their explanations of how it all took place are not based on anything solid except what the scientists force the evidence to say so that it fits their theory.

Like this......

The only thing linking them is someone's imagination. Supposedly millions of years apart, yet there is nothing in between to show the slow evolution that is supposed to have taken place.
You really believe that the creature in the first image is the relative of the one in the last?

Or this.....

Has anyone ever seen a giraffe in the early stages of evolution? Lamark imagined that this must have been true. How much imagination drives this theory?

What about man?

At what point did the ape become a man? Without your diagrams and drawings, which we know are the product of imagination more than real evidence, you have no proof that the first humans were not exactly like they are now. Apes were designed to be apes and humans were designed to be humans.....no guessing where to draw the imaginary line.

The fact that you cannot grasp the importance of understanding someone's work prior to critiquing it speaks volumes about your utter cluelessness here.

I understand completely......science is too clever for God...I get it.

It is an insult to all their "work" to suggest that they are barking up the wrong tree. Yet scientists give no credibility to the Creator for his "work", which is staring them in the face in the most outstanding display of ingenuity and design.

Good example. Basically what you're doing is critiquing the Hebrew-English translations and accusing the professionals who did it of all sorts of malfeasances......without bothering to learn Hebrew or even look at their work. And you can't figure out why that's a problem. It's truly bizarre.

What if the person I select to teach me Hebrew fails to teach it correctly......? Am I at fault for the mistakes I make when I explain the interpretation that he taught me? I believe that all the knowledge that science bases its evolutionary theory upon, was built on a very shaky foundation. I believe that it is a false premise and that everything built on that premise is equally flawed. You are free to disagree.

Pretty much to anyone who is capable of objective thought.

Are you yourself capable of seeing past your own prejudices? Can you think objectively about the possibility of an Intelligent Designer?

I actually agree here....creationism is indeed much, much more simplistic than evolutionary biology.

Is science then discriminating against those who are not gifted academically? Should we just fall at the feet of science and blindly accept all the imaginary stuff that they promote because of how intelligent they claim to be? You accuse us of believing in an imaginary Creator, but your whole theory is based on an imagined scenario that it cannot possibly prove. Where do you have the high ground here?

Just because Genesis is simply written, doesn't mean that the whole process was simple. God just didn't need a lot of jargon to explain it.

 

[Deeje]

Again you make it abundantly clear that this is a religious, rather than scientific, issue for you. And that by itself is just fine....if you would just stop there. But for some reason you feel compelled to take that next step and try and critique the work of scientists, even though you've never looked at their work nor do you understand it.

Why do I need to stop there? I have said before, I do not separate the Creator from his creation. It isn't separating religion from science, but attributing creation to the greatest scientist in existence without whom you would have nothing to study.

I suspect it has to do with the relative status of science and religion in today's society. You realize that in past times, the mere act of declaring something from scripture and/or the pulpit was very compelling to the general public. If a religious authority said something, people listened. But that's not the case today, is it? Religion is in decline both in numbers and authority, and science has become our society's preferred means of determining reality. We see it in things like advertising, where marketers love to say things like "9 out of 10 scientists agree" or "clinically proven to...". No one markets their products by appealing to the authority of pastors or scriptures. We also see it in politics, where oftentimes decisions are put on hold "until the science is in".

Humanity has been trained by the power of suggestion from time immemorial.....but we never learn, do we? No matter what era we live in, someone wants to take our minds and our money and use them for their own advantage. Look at the commercial system....it uses suggestion to sell products that are unhealthy and to throw away ones that are, so that greedy men can line their pockets.

Medical science has jumped on that bandwagon and locked humanity into a system that is also perpetuating ill health to line the pockets of greedy pharmaceutical companies. Men with an agenda and with wealth, power and prestige as their aim have molded this world to suit themselves. The minority profit whilst the majority suffer.
Such is human nature. How has science contributed to that situation?

You've grown up and now live in that environment, and as a result you understand that merely declaring "evolution is false because it contradicts scripture" just doesn't carry any weight any more. Because science has become such an important aspect of our western culture (it's the reason you and I can even have this conversation), you realize that in order to make a compelling case, you have to speak to the science. To do otherwise is to be ignored.

Again reinforcing the fact that human nature never changes. Science today is now challenged more than ever to produce the goods, because people have access to information that was not available to them in times past. Medical science can no longer play God because Doctor Google is always in, and he has no waiting room. Evolutionary science can be challenged the same way. It can't get away with its suggestions any more because people are demanding some proof for what they suggest "might have" happened all those millions of years ago. I believe that science has been caught with its pants down.

Of course you do....you have to. You've already stated quite clearly that reaching a different conclusion simply isn't an option.

It isn't an option because science has failed to convince me with its pathetic "evidence". I see it for what it is....a fraud masquerading as true science. It is nothing but educated guessing.

Don't project your own willful ignorance onto me. I'm a professional scientist and have been a senior biologist for the last 8 years. During my education my professors didn't just tell us things were so, we conducted experiments to see it for ourselves, we went into the field to collect our own data, we examined fossils with our own eyes and hands, we attended conferences where we could ask questions of the people whose work we'd read.

And how many forgone conclusions did you reach when told to expect a predicted outcome? If your professors were barking up the wrong tree, then so are all the people who accepted their version of events.

Just because your religious world operates in a "because I say so" framework, don't assume everything else does too.

And your world of science doesn't operate like that at all.....? If all you can produce is diagrams and assumptions and conclusions "because I say so"...how is it that you feel so superior? If you see us as deluded fools.....we see you the same way. We each believe our teachers and hopefully one of us is right. We will just have to wait and see, won't we?

 

[ArtieE]

I am sure that you are not one bit interested in the answer.....but I will give it to you anyway....

I couldn't find the answer in your post. Where does the Bible say "kinds" can't evolve into different "kinds"? I am very interested in the answer. If the Bible doesn't say so, where do you have it from?

 

[savagewind]

I think the problems with believing God actually made every living thing are many.

What is malaria good for? What about river blindness? The viruses which cause cancer?
How about the creature that lives in people's skin? If God personally designed all those things is he responsible for people's undue suffering? You teach that God is not responsible. Don't you? Then why did God design the things that cause suffering?

 

[Jose Fly]

From what I have read, there is no case at all

Exactly....."from what I have read". You read introductory material and assume it represents the full extent of the science.

Not a very intelligent thing to do, is it?

I am not critiquing their work...I am critiquing their assumptions....big difference.

Your delusion is noted.

Their explanations of how it all took place are not based on anything solid except what the scientists force the evidence to say so that it fits their theory.

Like this......

The only thing linking them is someone's imagination.

Are you familiar with the concept of derived characteristics?

Or this.....

Has anyone ever seen a giraffe in the early stages of evolution? Lamark imagined that this must have been true. How much imagination drives this theory?

Lamarck? Sheesh, you're only about 200 years behind.

So again we see that you remain deliberately ignorant of the subject, yet despite your ignorance you've deemed yourself fully qualified to critique it.

That's very delusional.

At what point did the ape become a man?

Again your ignorance is showing. There was no singular point at which "ape became a man".

But let's explore the subject a bit and see just what the evidence does show, ok? If humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record? What sort of fossils should we find, and what patterns of anatomical characteristics should we find?

I understand completely......science is too clever for God...I get it.

Again you clearly show that this is about religion for you, and not science.

Yet scientists give no credibility to the Creator for his "work", which is staring them in the face in the most outstanding display of ingenuity and design.

Give an example of something (an organism or trait) that you have concluded to be "designed", and describe how you determined it to be "designed".

What if the person I select to teach me Hebrew fails to teach it correctly......? Am I at fault for the mistakes I make when I explain the interpretation that he taught me?

So your ignorance is everyone else's fault. How pathetic.

Are you yourself capable of seeing past your own prejudices? Can you think objectively about the possibility of an Intelligent Designer?

Sure. Let's see how compelling your case for "design" is.

Is science then discriminating against those who are not gifted academically? Should we just fall at the feet of science and blindly accept all the imaginary stuff that they promote because of how intelligent they claim to be?

Apparently understanding a subject before critiquing it is a foreign concept to you. I'll let that speak for itself.

You accuse us of believing in an imaginary Creator

Where have I done that?

Why do I need to stop there?

Apparently understanding a subject before critiquing it is a foreign concept to you. I'll let that speak for itself.

It isn't an option because science has failed to convince me with its pathetic "evidence".

Earlier, when I asked if you could ever change your mind on this and become an "evolutionist", you answered, "No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs".

IOW, you directly and clearly stated that changing your mind isn't an option because of your religious beliefs. Now you're trying to say it's because of a lack of evidence.

You can't even keep your excuses straight.

And how many forgone conclusions did you reach when told to expect a predicted outcome?

Wow, you really have no clue how even basic science works. When designing an experiment, the first thing you do is establish the hypothesis being tested and identify what results would negate it (null hypothesis).

I know I'm talking to a brick wall here, but you really should take the time to understand a subject before attempting to debate it.

And your world of science doesn't operate like that at all.....?

No, not at all. That's why scientific papers have to have full descriptions of how they collected and analyzed their data, rather than just a conclusion followed by "because we say so". You'd know that if you bothered to look.

If all you can produce is diagrams and assumptions and conclusions "because I say so"...how is it that you feel so superior?

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. You look at introductory material, assume that's all there is, and from that declare the case to be weak. It never even occurs to you that there's an enormous amount of science behind those diagrams.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the problems with believing God actually made every living thing are many.

What is malaria good for? What about river blindness? The viruses which cause cancer?
How about the creature that lives in people's skin? If God personally designed all those things is he responsible for people's undue suffering? You teach that God is not responsible. Don't you? Then why did God design the things that cause suffering?

Earlier someone here said they believe God deliberately and intentionally created those things, and justified it by basically saying "God can do whatever he wants".

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is just logic. What do you use in your life that was designed for a specific purpose that had no designer? And how useful is a design if the thing is not manufactured...again by intelligent humans, often using machinery designed by other intelligent minds?

Circular arguments aren't logical. You declare that something is creation/design, which smuggles in the very thing you are trying to prove in the first place. Proper logic doesn't work that way.

The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that all the huffing and puffing of the evolutionists about how much "evidence" they have for their theory, is nothing more that conjecture and educated guessing dressed up as scientific fact. I wanted to show people that there are no facts, and that the whole theory could go up in smoke tomorrow if some new discovery is made.....or God taps them on the shoulder.

Then you've failed. And not only that, you've demonstrated that you don't even understand how evolution operates to begin with and that you refuse to take in new information and learn new things.

The funny thing is, every new discovery so far has reinforced and confirmed the theory of evolution. No piece of evidence found, as of yet, has managed to falsify the theory. That should tell you something.

I guess what you're telling me, by ignoring and diverting away from what I said, is that you really have nothing to compare non-designed things to and so your position doesn't make much sense.

Science's interpretation of DNA evidence is the same as all their other evidence.....based on their own imagined scenario.

DNA, plus all the other corroborating evidence from almost every other field of science indicates over and over that the theory of evolution is the best available explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth. That's why it's the prevailing theory.

I am tired of the finger pointing and accusations made against those who believe in a Creator as if we are a brainless lot incapable of understanding the science, like all you scientific geniuses and your mentors.....the truth be known, science has nothing but its own ideas and the power of suggestion to convey what it thinks "might have" or "could have" happened million or even billions of years ago when no one was around to record any of it. You are "believers" just as we are. You put your faith in the words of men...we put our faith in the words of God.

Now you can protest about that all you like, but you have no more actual solid proof for what you believe than we do. That is the message. Tell the truth and choose your belief system.

Stop demonstrating that you don't understand the science and most likely people will stop pointing out your lack of understanding. There's nothing wrong in not understanding something, but it's the refusal to take in new information that baffles me the most.

The language of science has been explained to you over and over and yet you continue to post the same nonsense about it. It's baffling.

I don't put my faith in the words of men. I put my trust in demonstrable evidence.

And again I must point out that evolution is not a belief system. Personally, I would be embarrassed to post erroneous claims over and over again, especially when I've been corrected on them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have looked at a lot of articles presented to me as proof that evolution is a foregone conclusion......I just don't believe their interpretation of the evidence. I hope you understand that difference.

Would I read scientific papers in language I don't understand? Why would I even try? Would I ask you to read the Bible in Hebrew if that was not a language that you understood? We have translations for that purpose. Science has 'translators' too so that those of us who are not familiar with the language can understand what science is implying. Those I have read.



To whom do I look ridiculous? Scientists? I am well aware of the ego component involved in the world of academia. Who wants to look foolish to one's peers? Character assassination is the penalty one pays for disagreeing with academics. Condescension is a powerful weapon when human egos are the judges of what is right.

Do you actually think at this juncture that I care what any man thinks of me? Personally, I care more about what the Creator thinks of me. And his explanation of events requires much less imagination and tap dancing with fancy jargon than evolutionary science's version of events. I think it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

It is people like you who put science on a pedestal, not me. Evolutionary science is like a lot of other academic pursuits in this world.....it is a counterfeit substitute for making men feel superior. Once humans feel that they are the most intelligent creatures in existence, who can be their god? They have attained that status for themselves in their own minds, which would explain their collective lack of humility for the most part.

I can understand anyone who might be turned off by religion, some of the practices of which fill me with horror, but that does not make me throw the baby out with the bath water. I accept what the Bible teaches, not necessarily what humans teach about it. If the Bible says it, I believe it, but it's done with study of the subject matter. You appear to take the same approach to science....pointing to all this so-called "evidence" that science claims to have. The evidence means nothing without the interpretation....just like the Bible. If the interpretation is wrong, then everything built on it will be wrong as well.



As I said, I have looked at plenty of evidence presented to me by many people like yourself....I do not see what you see.....I see the language of wishful thinking in trying to blend fact with fantasy. The diagrams and the computer generated images carry the suggestion so much better than words ever could.

Your beliefs are in many ways like my own, except that we have different teachers. You accept what your teachers tell you because you accept their interpretation of the "evidence" that is written up in science journals etc. But what you don't see is your blind acceptance of what science can never prove. It can sound convincing enough, but if you have become inured to the language, you won't even see how much suggestion is contained in that literature. A suggestion is not a fact....a prediction is not a fact either, unless you can prove that it came true. Assuming that it did is not the same....saying that something "might have" or "could have" happened is NOT the same as saying that it "must have"......even you must understand that much.

Why do you believe what the Bible says without question?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am sure that you are not one bit interested in the answer.....but I will give it to you anyway....

The Bible simply says that "God created"....everything....as is. A construction crew doesn't tell suppliers to dump a load of bricks, pipes and electrical cable on a building site and then expect them to evolve themselves into a house with plumbing and electrical connection with voice command, computer controlled features all in place........do they?

Creatures don't build themselves either. That is such a difficult concept apparently.

Whatsamatta....?

Can't prove God's existence "scientifically"? You can't prove evolution ever happened "scientifically" either.

A "kind" is a creature that seeks its own "kind" as a mate, hence the mandate to "be fruitful and fill the earth"....."according to [their] KIND" ...another extremely difficult thing to process, is it?

No university degrees required......it is something that can be observed with your own eyes.

Good thing scientists go on a lot more than that or we'd still be believing that Thor creates lightning bolts.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, you can see dishonesty where there is none, but where there is, you can't see it.

And I was thinking this about you.

In searching for that textbook containing those skulls I posted, I found this,

Modern-day science textbooks still perpetuating Haeckel's fraud:

Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks -- Here's a List

My question is, why? Is the theory of common descent on such perilous ground, that evolutionist teachers have to resort to outdated pseudoscience?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Earlier someone here said they believe God deliberately and intentionally created those things, and justified it by basically saying "God can do whatever he wants".

Which is the key- as in the OP

It's the basic reason most people are skeptical of evolution, it's difficult to account for the creation of all those life forms without creativity- a will, desire, purpose. Relying on accidents, random mutations for the creative engine- entropy prevails; deterioration, degradation, collapse.

ID is one possible solution for this problem.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Henry Gee, in his reply to the Discovery Institute's alleged misquote of his fossil statement, said:

"evolution......which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here."

(From NCSE Resource)


Lol.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which is the key- as in the OP

It's the basic reason most people are skeptical of evolution

Actually, there have been surveys of this done, and the primary reasons people deny evolution are 1) religious beliefs and 2) political conservatism. They also found an inverse relationship between education in genetics and evolution denialism.

http://students.washington.edu/yankel/pdfs/miller_evolution.pdf (PDF)

it's difficult to account for the creation of all those life forms without creativity- a will, desire, purpose. Relying on accidents, random mutations for the creative engine- entropy prevails; deterioration, degradation, collapse.

ID is one possible solution for this problem.

Even if we grant those premises, I don't see how ID creationism offers any sort of solution. It provides no mechanism, time frame, or means to differentiate "designed" from "undesigned".

Of course if we consider it for what it truly is....a failed legal ploy....then it makes sense why people advocate it in religious forums even though it's almost completely lacking in content.

 

[Deeje]

Exactly....."from what I have read". You read introductory material and assume it represents the full extent of the science.

Not a very intelligent thing to do, is it?

Are you saying that the interpreters (those who interpret the scientific jargon for us at that introductory level) got it wrong somehow? Is their basic interpretation of the full blown science misleading then?

Since we 'uneducated' types rely on those interpreters, perhaps you should have a word to them about the concept that they are conveying....or failing to convey, because the concept itself is suspect, lacking any real evidence, let alone the complicated details of that so-called evidence that only the educated elite can comprehend.

Are you familiar with the concept of derived characteristics?

Is this a reasonable explanation in layman's terms?

"The family tree

The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships.


By studying inherited species' characteristics and other historical evidence, we can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and represent them on a "family tree," called a phylogeny. The phylogeny you see below represents the basic relationships that tie all life on Earth together.

The three domains
This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. We can zoom in on particular branches of the tree to explore the phylogeny of particular lineages, such as Animalia (outlined in red). And then we can zoom in even further to examine some of the major lineages within Vertebrata.

The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree. For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several "vertebrate twigs."

The family tree

Let me just address the portions in red. The very first sentence sets off the alarm bells. The "process of evolution" is a given...a foregone conclusion that sets scientists up to fit everything they find into that hypothesis. That is NOT a fact, but a suggestion....completely unproven.This false premise provides the foundation for all that follows....all equally unprovable.

" As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge."....again stated as a fact, but completely unprovable.You cannot prove that 'lineages evolved and split' and that their 'paths diverged'.....that is all speculation, but you'd never know it.

"By studying inherited species' characteristics and other historical evidence, we can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and represent them on a "family tree," called a phylogeny."

Here again is another assumption masquerading as fact. How do you "reconstruct" something that was never in existence in the first place? This is a fairytale, but apparently you scientists see right past it!

"This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains:"

Again a hypothesis is stated as fact. Illustrating an "idea".....who said the "idea" is true. Who can prove that evolution ever took place? Not science.

"evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs"

"Birds are dinoasaurs"...?......is this the "suggestion" that led to T-Rex being related to a chicken?

If you cannot understand what I am saying, then I suggest you are also stuck in your own mindset and can completely ignore all evidence for Intelligent Design based on nothing more that your own 'belief' system.

 

[Deeje]

Lamarck? Sheesh, you're only about 200 years behind.

So again we see that you remain deliberately ignorant of the subject, yet despite your ignorance you've deemed yourself fully qualified to critique it.

That's very delusional.

I think you missed the point. (not surprising) I used that as an illustration for the basis of all evolutionary ideas......imagined outcomes of an unprovable theory. The whole ToE is based on what science imagines might have happened. But it is never presented that way...the illustrations have an air of fact about them...do they not? All designed to lead to only one conclusion. There is another, equally valid explanation, IMO.

Again your ignorance is showing. There was no singular point at which "ape became a man".

Evolution suggests otherwise. How does an ape gradually become a human? Does he wake up one day and tell his wife he thinks its time to exercise his superior brain and develop complicated language, leave the cave and go and build a house and use tools and domesticate animals and become subsistence farmers......?

But let's explore the subject a bit and see just what the evidence does show, ok? If humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record? What sort of fossils should we find, and what patterns of anatomical characteristics should we find?

If we have the concept of ID in mind, instead of painfully slow evolution, then what should we find in the fossil record? Creatures that lived at various points in times past. Same evidence, but we have a different interpretation. Patterns of anatomical characteristics can mean that the Creator used a base model for many different creatures in their skeletal structure. Since we all breathe oxygen and have blood in our veins, a similar anatomical structure can also mean that the basic design could be carried through to other lifeforms, because of how superior it was to previous living things. The exploration is fine if you really look at the evidence without bias.

What I didn't tell you before is that I used to believe quite strongly in evolution in my younger years, being the first generation to be taught it in High School. It was a foregone conclusion to me too until I began to really weigh up the evidence for myself. The more I examined that evidence, the more it screamed "design" to me. I have been on both sides of this issue. Now evolution seems to me to be the most ridiculous explanation ever to conquer intelligent minds.

Give an example of something (an organism or trait) that you have concluded to be "designed", and describe how you determined it to be "designed".

The branch of science dedicated to mimicking the designs found in nature (biomimetics) has taken a great deal of the designs found in nature to give them application in our technological world, often with great commercial advantage.
If the designs in nature have to be copied by intelligent scientific minds, then how come the originals required no intelligent designer?

Who Designed It First? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Sure. Let's see how compelling your case for "design" is.

Evolution—Myths and Facts — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Earlier, when I asked if you could ever change your mind on this and become an "evolutionist", you answered, "No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs".

IOW, you directly and clearly stated that changing your mind isn't an option because of your religious beliefs. Now you're trying to say it's because of a lack of evidence.

You can't even keep your excuses straight.

Reasons are not excuses and excuses are not reasons....Both in this instance are true......not only have I proven "ID" to myself by examining the same evidence (though reaching a very different conclusion) but science's inability to sell its theory through preconceived ideas presented as interpretation of evidence......it holds no weight for me at all. Can you not comprehend this? What convinces you, does not convince me because I reject science's very first premise...that evolution ever took place. You can hypothesize till the cows come home...there is no more real proof for what you believe than there is for my Intelligent Designer.

Wow, you really have no clue how even basic science works. When designing an experiment, the first thing you do is establish the hypothesis being tested and identify what results would negate it (null hypothesis).

I know I'm talking to a brick wall here, but you really should take the time to understand a subject before attempting to debate it.

I understand the basics and the underpinnings....I don't need to understand the waffle....they are your excuses for rejecting an Intelligent Designer.....you have the right to choose whatever belief system you like......but just be truthful and call it what it is....a belief system.

No, not at all. That's why scientific papers have to have full descriptions of how they collected and analyzed their data, rather than just a conclusion followed by "because we say so". You'd know that if you bothered to look.

I have looked, and all I see is the same rhetoric....the language of supposition. Scientists just want to prove their pet theory to other scientists. Their analysis needs to fall within the parameters of what they have been taught is the truth about how life changed on this planet, so the evidence is interpreted to fit their predictions. How life began is avoided like the plague....fobbed off to another branch, as if that is of no concern to evolutionists. I find that rather comical. If a Creator exists, then your whole theory is shot.

If scientists are vetting the findings of other scientists....isn't that a bit like the fox guarding the hen house?

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. You look at introductory material, assume that's all there is, and from that declare the case to be weak. It never even occurs to you that there's an enormous amount of science behind those diagrams.

That's the thing......it isn't real provable science......it is just educated guessing couched in high sounding language, designed to prop up a theory that cannot be validated by the scientific methods used in other branches of science. Diagrams are all you have. You can't do experiments for evolution in a lab. And you cannot call adaptation "evolution" because it isn't, (it never changes the species but only adds variety to it) and adaptation cannot be used as evidence for organic evolution......an amoeba cannot evolve into a dinosaur without an inordinate amount of imagination.

Such is the nature of creationism.

I am not a creationist (just for the record) . I believe that plenty of evidence points to exquisite design in nature....and the logical conclusion for many of us is the existence of a Grand Designer who has a purpose in us being here. You are free to disagree.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Can you please cite the textbook that image came from?

No, I cannot at the moment. But I'm searching for it. While I was doing that, I ran across this:

Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks -- Here's a List

Such an ignoble endeavor does no credit to evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, there have been surveys of this done, and the primary reasons people deny evolution are 1) religious beliefs and 2) political conservatism.

http://students.washington.edu/yankel/pdfs/miller_evolution.pdf (PDF)

They tend to be skeptics of communism in other words yes!

They also found an inverse relationship between education in genetics and evolution denialism.

Most skeptics of Piltdown man were 'uneducated' in evolution also. I was taught evolution in high school and came out believing it- along with global cooling and peak oil happening before the year 2000.

It was considered a very good school, but I think the maintenance man probably had the best practical grasp of scientific principles!

Even if we grant those premises, I don't see how ID creationism offers any sort of solution. It provides no mechanism, time frame, or means to differentiate "designed" from "undesigned".

This is close to what Hoyle said about the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom, which he mocked as 'big bang' 'religious pseudoscience'- which could not be described in scientific terms. Atheists at the time overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models for the opposite rationale - 'no creation = no creator'

While Lemaitre in contrast went out of his way to disassociate his theory from his personal beliefs. i.e. it wasn't his faith in God, but his skepticism of atheism which allowed science to progress.

And so I would say the same here, creationism/ ID offers an alternative to the distinct belief system that permeates evolution, it allows us to openly acknowledge problems and seek solutions for them, rather than putting up barriers, trying to close the door at the simplest 'God refuting' explanation at hand