Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

Do you owned a car, Guy?

Can your car drive itself anywhere at it own choosing?

Can your car repair or heal itself when it break down?

Can your car make "baby" car?

 

[Jose Fly]

The car analogy breaks down because cars are not self replicating. Additionally cars are not stuck with their previous state as a jumping off point, their designers can always go back to a clean sheet of paper for a given feature, a given system or a complete design. Organisms' inability to do this makes for some very clear evidence for the process of evolution.

Additionally, Guy's analogy is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that if we see the same patterns in things, then the same mechanisms must have produced them. Of course we know for a fact that's not true, since the patterns in car designs are produced by human engineers, factory workers, and robots, whereas the patterns in the traits of biological organisms are not produced by humans, factory workers, and robots.

As soon as I pointed this out to Guy, he immediately started ignoring me. Such is the life of a creationist.......

 

[gnostic]

Additionally, Guy's analogy is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that if we see the same patterns in things, then the same mechanisms must have produced them. Of course we know for a fact that's not true, since the patterns in car designs are produced by human engineers, factory workers, and robots, whereas the patterns in the traits of biological organisms are not produced by humans, factory workers, and robots.

As soon as I pointed this out to Guy, he immediately started ignoring me. Such is the life of a creationist.......

I think Guy has already have me in the ignore list for months now, if not a year or two.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think Guy has already have me in the ignore list for months now, if not a year or two.

Says a lot when someone joins a debate forum, and then proceeds to ignore people who disagree with them. It reeks of insecurity.

 

[Deeje]

@ metis. Because we all know that 'the best form of defense is attack'...perhaps you should count how many personal attacks you have made on me in your most recent replies......

"Again, just another disingenuous song & dance whereas you simply have not, and apparently will not, answer the question I asked you"

"It is just so bizarre how disingenuous you are acting here, refusing to answer a simple question by deflecting back to me"

"Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje?"

"Maybe act like a moral adult and admit when you don't know something instead of deflecting, and also stop making dishonest accusations"

"But, again, notice your utterly disingenuous tactic, namely to not answer the question asked but simply deflecting it back to the person asking the question."

"Again, another pathetic lie from you"

The last time I looked, it was against forum rules to personally insult another poster. Do you think insulting me is gaining any credence for your case? Or is it an act of desperation because the arguments for macro-evolution are being invalidated?

And this one...
"It's more that she refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that the creation accounts can be taken as allegory. IOW, it's the old "my way or the highway" approach that the JW's are well known for."

It is also against forum rules to talk about another poster in the third person. Attack the ideas not the poster.....where did I ever personally insult you? Or call you a liar? I did not expect this from you.

I personally think that the evolutionists posting here are threatened by the defenses made for ID in this thread. How else can you account for the traffic and how long this argument is continuing? The descent into vitriol is telling.

If you are all so confident of your position, why do you need to defend it so vigorously? Are you afraid that people with a little insight might actually discover the truth? That macro-evolution is a manufactured fiction dressed up to look like fact?
If they need to change the definition of the word "theory" to further their case, doesn't that seem odd? When is a theory not a theory? When it pertains to evolution of course!

The more evolutionists argue, and the more desperate and invalid they show their arguments to be, and the more transparent the truth becomes.....but only to those who are not sucked into the "science is the intelligent person's replacement for God" argument.....or "only ignorant and uneducated people will believe in creation"......Oh brother! How's the altitude up there in the land of academia?

The whole impressive looking evolutionary building has matchsticks for a foundation, but everyone is too busy admiring the architecture to notice the cracks. If the theory falls flat on its face, as I believe it inevitably will, the collapse will be tremendous. How many will be swept away in the aftermath, I wonder?

I am proud to be a believer and I don't care what any human thinks of me....I care only about what my Creator thinks of me....because, at the end of the day, IMO.....that is all that is going to count.

Creation speaks for itself to hearts who are open to its beauty and exquisiteness. We are meant to give thanks...it's a natural response, but obviously not to those whose hearts are shut off from any expression of gratitude to a living Creator.

 

[Deeje]

Additionally, Guy's analogy is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption that if we see the same patterns in things, then the same mechanisms must have produced them. Of course we know for a fact that's not true, since the patterns in car designs are produced by human engineers, factory workers, and robots, whereas the patterns in the traits of biological organisms are not produced by humans, factory workers, and robots.

As soon as I pointed this out to Guy, he immediately started ignoring me. Such is the life of a creationist.......

I'm sorry but this is just so typical of the response of those blinded by a flawed theory.

People ignore you when they have already stated their case and you ignore what they have said to rehash the very thing they just exposed as false.

If you are waiting for believers to acquiesce....please don't hold your breath.

I particularly liked this part....

"Of course we know for a fact that's not true, since the patterns in car designs are produced by human engineers, factory workers, and robots, whereas the patterns in the traits of biological organisms are not produced by humans, factory workers, and robots."

So here is an admission that even though something complicated like an automobile needs a designer and a mechanical engineer to devise all of its functions so that they work together to produce a working machine, and then they need other intelligent workers to assemble the components in the correct sequence, "the patterns in the traits of biological organisms are not produced by humans, factory workers, and robots."

And of course they needed no other intervention from an intelligent source of any kind to create, guide and complete the process....? They just magically came together out of thin air and designed themselves...?

Seriously!

Where is the logic in these arguments?

 

[gnostic]

Says a lot when someone joins a debate forum, and then proceeds to ignore people who disagree with them. It reeks of insecurity.

I have only put 1 person in the ignore list the whole time I was here.

And I didn't put him there we have disagreements. I put him there because he kept lying about things that I did write about. I have asked him not to use straw man, but he refused to do so.

But since I have not seen him around for quite some times, I took him off the list.

 

[Deeje]

Says a lot when someone joins a debate forum, and then proceeds to ignore people who disagree with them. It reeks of insecurity.

Or it is an admission of

 

[gnostic]

@ metis. Because we all know that 'the best form of defense is attack'...perhaps you should count how many personal attacks you have made on me in your most recent replies......

"Again, just another disingenuous song & dance whereas you simply have not, and apparently will not, answer the question I asked you"

"It is just so bizarre how disingenuous you are acting here, refusing to answer a simple question by deflecting back to me"

"Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje?"

"Maybe act like a moral adult and admit when you don't know something instead of deflecting, and also stop making dishonest accusations"

"But, again, notice your utterly disingenuous tactic, namely to not answer the question asked but simply deflecting it back to the person asking the question."

"Again, another pathetic lie from you"

The last time I looked, it was against forum rules to personally insult another poster. Do you think insulting me is gaining any credence for your case? Or is it an act of desperation because the arguments for macro-evolution are being invalidated?

I don't think any of that as insults, since they are all true.

You do have habits of being less than honest, often evade questions and you are too prideful to admit errors or to learn from it.

You are clearly a child of JW, and they have reputations of being dishonest.

 

[Deeje]

I don't think any of that as insults, since they are all true.

You can think whatever you like....you are just not permitted to write personal insults it any forum. True or otherwise. It keeps things from descending into childish retaliation.

Adults should be able to hold a civil tongue.

You do have habits of being less than honest, often evade questions and you are too prideful to admit errors or to learn from it.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. I am of the honest opinion that your command of English makes you appear to be a 7 year old child. You obviously aren't, but you do not exactly sound like a scholar. But hey....what is my opinion worth?

I do not evade questions but I don't give credence to the more nonsensical ones by dignifying them with a waste of my time. I allow them to stand as they are in all their glory. They don't need addressing....you know like suggesting that someone believes that cars have baby cars.

You are clearly a child of JW, and they have reputations of being dishonest.

I was raised in the Anglican church which I attended for the first third of my life. The "reputation" of Jehovah's Witnesses is not earned by a long shot. The reputation of Jesus and his apostles also came from opposers...ignorant like a lot of people are today. Happy to believe the lies. I was one of those people once.....and I am so pleased that I bothered to listen to JW's when they called at my door and I was able to make up my own mind about them and what they taught. They were the only ones who made sense and who followed the teachings of Christ without making excuses for why they didn't.

Its a cramped and narrow road, but I wouldn't travel any other. I know where it leads.

 

[metis]

@ metis. Because we all know that 'the best form of defense is attack'...perhaps you should count how many personal attacks you have made on me in your most recent replies......

"Again, just another disingenuous song & dance whereas you simply have not, and apparently will not, answer the question I asked you"

"It is just so bizarre how disingenuous you are acting here, refusing to answer a simple question by deflecting back to me"

"Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje?"

"Maybe act like a moral adult and admit when you don't know something instead of deflecting, and also stop making dishonest accusations"

"But, again, notice your utterly disingenuous tactic, namely to not answer the question asked but simply deflecting it back to the person asking the question."

"Again, another pathetic lie from you"

The last time I looked, it was against forum rules to personally insult another poster. Do you think insulting me is gaining any credence for your case? Or is it an act of desperation because the arguments for macro-evolution are being invalidated?

And this one...
"It's more that she refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that the creation accounts can be taken as allegory. IOW, it's the old "my way or the highway" approach that the JW's are well known for."

It is also against forum rules to talk about another poster in the third person. Attack the ideas not the poster.....where did I ever personally insult you? Or call you a liar? I did not expect this from you.

I personally think that the evolutionists posting here are threatened by the defenses made for ID in this thread. How else can you account for the traffic and how long this argument is continuing? The descent into vitriol is telling.

If you are all so confident of your position, why do you need to defend it so vigorously? Are you afraid that people with a little insight might actually discover the truth? That macro-evolution is a manufactured fiction dressed up to look like fact?
If they need to change the definition of the word "theory" to further their case, doesn't that seem odd? When is a theory not a theory? When it pertains to evolution of course!

The more evolutionists argue, and the more desperate and invalid they show their arguments to be, and the more transparent the truth becomes.....but only to those who are not sucked into the "science is the intelligent person's replacement for God" argument.....or "only ignorant and uneducated people will believe in creation"......Oh brother! How's the altitude up there in the land of academia?

The whole impressive looking evolutionary building has matchsticks for a foundation, but everyone is too busy admiring the architecture to notice the cracks. If the theory falls flat on its face, as I believe it inevitably will, the collapse will be tremendous. How many will be swept away in the aftermath, I wonder?

I am proud to be a believer and I don't care what any human thinks of me....I care only about what my Creator thinks of me....because, at the end of the day, IMO.....that is all that is going to count.

Creation speaks for itself to hearts who are open to its beauty and exquisiteness. We are meant to give thanks...it's a natural response, but obviously not to those whose hearts are shut off from any expression of gratitude to a living Creator.

If you actually read each one of those from me that you quoted, you should see that I did not insult you but I did insult some of your approaches here. I did not call you any names, for example. See the difference. My comments reflect the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach, so maybe read back through what I posted and keep that in mind.

And you have used sarcasm and insulting smogies against me, but that's OK? Or is this all a cover-up for the simple fact that you cannot answer the question I posed asking you to provide evidence for your assertion that there's some sort of magical wall between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", nor are you willing to admit that you don't have any evidence? Heck, even Jesus said he didn't know when asked about the "end of times", so why is it so difficult for you to admit that maybe you don't know?

Me thinks you're angry because you simply do not have the facts to back up some of these claims you have made, so "blaming the messenger" is an easy way out for you.

Anyhow, I do not dislike you, but I do get quite frustrated with you at times-- and my guess is that the feeling is mutual.

Take care.

 

[Jose Fly]

People ignore you when they have already stated their case and you ignore what they have said to rehash the very thing they just exposed as false.

Nah, as soon as I pointed out the flaw in Guy's attempted analogy, he ran.

If you are waiting for believers to acquiesce....please don't hold your breath.

I have no illusions that any creationist would ever concede anything. It's like at the Nye-Ham debate where they were both asked what would change their minds and where Nye said "evidence", Ham said "nothing".

So here is an admission that even though something complicated like an automobile needs a designer and a mechanical engineer to devise all of its functions so that they work together to produce a working machine, and then they need other intelligent workers to assemble the components in the correct sequence, "the patterns in the traits of biological organisms are not produced by humans, factory workers, and robots."

Not sure what in there you're disputing.

And of course they needed no other intervention from an intelligent source of any kind to create, guide and complete the process....?

Nope. We've watched organisms generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species for quite a long time now and not once did anyone ever see any indication that some sort of "intelligence" was involved.

They just magically came together out of thin air and designed themselves...?

Thanks for showing that all the time people spent trying to explain basic biology to you was a waste of time. You haven't learned a single thing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The car analogy breaks down because cars are not self replicating. Additionally cars are not stuck with their previous state as a jumping off point, their designers can always go back to a clean sheet of paper for a given feature, a given system or a complete design. Organisms' inability to do this makes for some very clear evidence for the process of evolution.

pointing out any differences just continues to strengthen the point: It's a different process, an obviously, unambiguously artificial one, with all the benefits of creative intelligence clearly displayed

Which yet leaves a record that can be described in identical terms to this more mysterious process we call evolution...

So that record suggests nothing whatsoever about a specifically Darwinian, naturalistic process.

 

[Sapiens]

pointing out any differences just continues to strengthen the point: It's a different process, an obviously, unambiguously artificial one, with all the benefits of creative intelligence clearly displayed

Which yet leaves a record that can be described in identical terms to this more mysterious process we call evolution...

So that record suggests nothing whatsoever about a specifically Darwinian, naturalistic process.

You are ignoring the problem presented by structures like the recurrent laryngeal nerve. I suspect that you do not even understand what the huge problem that such structures present is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are ignoring the problem presented by structures like the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

My car has some redundant wiring conduits leading to an electric trunk latch what I aint got... proof positive that the car accidentally morphed itself from one that did!

btw, how's the search for that elusive short- necked Giraffe fossil- any luck there yet?

 

[Sapiens]

My car has some redundant wiring conduits leading to an electric trunk latch what I aint got... proof positive that the car accidentally morphed itself from one that did!

As I earlier noted, I suspect that you do not even understand what the huge problem that such structures present is. Your analogy fails because the wiring you are focusing on is not remnant, it is not a result of last years model with not use this year, rather it is there for alternate trim types in this years model. Not at all the same thing.

btw, how's the search for that elusive short- necked Giraffe fossil- any luck there yet?

Even were it "missing" that would only point out that you are making an argument from ignorance, but it is not (despite your claims): Ancient fossils show how giraffe got its long neck

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As I earlier noted, I suspect that you do not even understand what the huge problem that such structures present is. Your analogy fails because the wiring you are focusing on is not remnant, it is not a result of last years model with not use this year, rather it is there for alternate trim types in this years model. Not at all the same thing.

We also see radiator grills with no radiator, radiator cap ornaments that no longer serve a function, vestigial tail fins, spare tire holders with no tire....

Even were it "missing" that would only point out that you are making an argument from ignorance, but it is not (despite your claims): Ancient fossils show how giraffe got its long neck

I'm familiar with that piece, it's extremely misleading unless you read to the end:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet."


:"In every way, it's intermediate," said study first author Melinda Danowitz - except in the actual real way!



The problem is also our flawed assessment of what is 'bad design', meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes were all used as examples of 'bad design', before we appreciated why they were crucial to life on earth.

Similarly with the RLN, there will always be mysteries that science has not solved- where atheism of the gaps can point & claim 'bad design'

 

[Sapiens]

I'm familiar with that piece, it's extremely misleading unless you read to the end:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet."

The same can be said for every single fossil that has ever been found in every lineage, since in no case can it be shown that the fossil is in the actual line of descent. This is why genomic supporting data is so telling in cases where it is available. In this case it is a close cousin and is illustrative of the form that the precise intermediate had.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The same can be said for every single fossil that has ever been found in every lineage, since in no case can it be shown that the fossil is in the actual line of descent.

They are pretty sure this aint it.

But as always the case for evolution quickly changes from 'mountains of empirical evidence' to 'mountains of excuses for why the empirical evidence is impossible to find'

This is why genomic supporting data is so telling in cases where it is available. In this case it is a close cousin and is illustrative of the form that the precise intermediate had.

genomic data from this 7 million year old fossil?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

on the contrary-- this mechanism was not understood in the Victorian Age Darwinism was conceived. It is now, we now live in the information age.

We call them nested hierarchies in information systems. I'm sure you can understand the example I gave you, why no amount of adaptation of text attributes in this forum software, can ever author the very software that supports this very capacity for adaptation- it's not just tricky, it's a paradox. I don't expect you to accept this all in one go, as a refutation of Darwinism in itself, but at least accept the proof of principle here:

Capacity for adaptation ≠ creative mechanism for that same capacity

It's not just skeptics trying to solve this conundrum, it's a real problem, and pretending it doesn't exist would be a disservice to scientific progress either way




intermediates or transitionals are rather subjective/ fudgeable terms- but I agree with the late great curator of the Chicago field museum I have visited many times

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
-- David M. Raup

I still don't see a mechanism preventing smaller changes from accruing into larger changes over longer time periods - just unsupported claims about what cannot happen. I'll just assume that you cannot provide one because you know of one none.