Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[outhouse]

I can laugh at the "evidence" because it is all contrived

Your factually in error.

And you are once again making unsubstantiated statement you cannot back with any credibility what so ever.

And no credible sources provide yet again.

 

[JayJayDee]

Your factually in error.

Am I? I have seen no facts so far...just supposition and educated guessing. You have no facts if the "evidence" is open to flawed human interpretation.

And you are once again making unsubstantiated statement you cannot back with any credibility what so ever.

And no credible sources provide yet again.

Where are your substantiated arguments? Who gave your sources credibility? I haven seen anything truly credible yet.

Do you actually have anything to add to this conversation that doesn't involve repeating the same things over and over about "facts" and scientific credentials like we didn't hear you the first time....and the second time.....and the third...fourth...fifth...? Good grief!

Are you yourself capable of adding any of those "facts" you keep speaking about? Let's examine them....please keep it simple for those of us not dazzled by the science.

Can you add substantiation to anything at all with these so called facts? I am beginning to wonder if you might be a bit of a "fan" of evolutionists in the same way teenagers are fans of a pop group? That is all you seem to post...screaming from the sidelines but offering nothing real.

Organic Evolution is not a fact just because evolutionist and text books say so. As I am sure you will agree that God isn't a fact because Christians and the Bible say so. Do you see the reason for the impasse?

We both require faith in what we cannot prove.

You can accept your fantasy...I will accept mine. I like mine better.

 

[McBell]

Am I? I have seen no facts so far...just supposition and educated guessing. You have no facts if the "evidence" is open to flawed human interpretation.



Where are your substantiated arguments? Who gave your sources credibility? I haven seen anything truly credible yet.

Do you actually have anything to add to this conversation that doesn't involve repeating the same things over and over about "facts" and scientific credentials like we didn't hear you the first time....and the second time.....and the third...fourth...fifth...? Good grief!

Are you yourself capable of adding any of those "facts" you keep speaking about? Let's examine them....please keep it simple for those of us not dazzled by the science.

Can you add substantiation to anything at all with these so called facts? I am beginning to wonder if you might be a bit of a "fan" of evolutionists in the same way teenagers are fans of a pop group? That is all you seem to post...screaming from the sidelines but offering nothing real.

Organic Evolution is not a fact just because evolutionist and text books say so. As I am sure you will agree that God isn't a fact because Christians and the Bible say so. Do you see the reason for the impasse?

We both require faith in what we cannot prove.

You can accept your fantasy...I will accept mine. I like mine better.

Interesting corner you painted yourself into.
Do you really think those outside your choir are going to fall for your above tactic?
I am most curious if you honestly believe your god has no problem with your blatant dishonesty?

 

[JayJayDee]

Interesting corner you painted yourself into.

What corner is that? I stand by everything I've said.

Do you really think those outside your choir are going to fall for your above tactic?

What tactic?.......telling the truth? All you have to do is see through the language that evolutionists use and you can plainly see what we see.....but only if you want to. Those "outside my choir" are free to make up their own minds.

I am most curious if you honestly believe your god has no problem with your blatant dishonesty?

My God is not known by you Mestemia so why should you care what he thinks? You are entitled to disbelieve like everyone else who swallows the evolution fallacy. Not my business.

The truth will be known one day, won't it?

 

[JayJayDee]

On reading through this post again I just couldn't help but point out the language that evolutionists want to ignore.

"
Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved:

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye


Conclusion?

Scientists have come up with "scenarios" as to how the eye-like structures "could have" gone through changes to produce the incredibly complex cameras we have in our head. Biologists have "hypothesised" the stages that eye development "may have gone through". Do you see the "could have" and "may have"? Watch for these words in your evolutionary works.

"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved:"????? Yep...

Again, no verifiable facts, just hypothesis and conjecture. And then they suggest that the design of our eyes is somehow defective....compared to what? An eagle's vision?

So according to evolutionists, our eyes are not designed in any way....they just happened accidentally through beneficial mutations (which almost never happen) why?.....because creatures thought it would be advantageous to see? Really? How do creatures know that it's beneficial to see if they have never done it?

Do we assume that our cameras have no designer and manufacturer? The cameras in our head have a built in computer that can interpret the image and even commit it to memory. Just a fluke though....eh?


Scientific America

Evolution of the Eye
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be

So intricate is the eye that its origin has long been a cause célèbre among creationists and intelligent design proponents, who hold it up as a prime example of what they term irreducible complexity—a system that cannot function in the absence of any of its components and that therefore cannot have evolved naturally from a more primitive form. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged in On the
Origin of Species
—the 1859 book detailing his theory of evolution by natural selection—that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize. And even when they do, the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved. Still, biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea.
They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.

Conclusion? After admitting that "direct evidence is hard to come by" and that "soft tissue structures rarely fossilize"...and even when they do, "the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved".......they then go on to detail how they "reconstructed" the process. Not contradictory...much.

How do scientists admit that they have no real evidence from the fossil record and then say they have clear evidence on how they imagine the eye evolved?

 

[FearGod]

On reading through this post again I just couldn't help but point out the language that evolutionists want to ignore.

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved:

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye


Conclusion?

Scientists have come up with "scenarios" as to how the eye-like structures "could have" gone through changes to produce the incredibly complex cameras we have in our head. Biologists have "hypothesised" the stages that eye development "may have gone through". Do you see the "could have" and "may have"? Watch for these words in your evolutionary works.

"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved:"????? Yep...

Again, no verifiable facts, just hypothesis and conjecture. And then they suggest that the design of our eyes is somehow defective....compared to what? An eagle's vision?

So according to evolutionists, our eyes are not designed in any way....they just happened accidentally through beneficial mutations (which almost never happen) why?.....because creatures thought it would be advantageous to see? Really? How do creatures know that it's beneficial to see if they have never done it?

Do we assume that our cameras have no designer and manufacturer? The cameras in our head have a built in computer that can interpret the image and even commit it to memory. Just a fluke though....eh?


Scientific America

Evolution of the Eye
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be

So intricate is the eye that its origin has long been a cause célèbre among creationists and intelligent design proponents, who hold it up as a prime example of what they term irreducible complexity—a system that cannot function in the absence of any of its components and that therefore cannot have evolved naturally from a more primitive form. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged in On the
Origin of Species
—the 1859 book detailing his theory of evolution by natural selection—that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize. And even when they do, the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved. Still, biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea.
They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.

Conclusion? After admitting that "direct evidence is hard to come by" and that "soft tissue structures rarely fossilize"...and even when they do, "the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved".......they then go on to detail how they "reconstructed" the process. Not contradictory...much.

How do scientists admit that they have no real evidence from the fossil record and then say they have clear evidence on how they imagine the eye evolved?

Yes indeed, it's hilarious how the evolutionists think.

They believe that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to progress while they believe that natural selection is directed, how natural selection works while the organism takes thousands of years to evolve, how natural selection will direct it while the benefit of it can't be seen in one day night or even in one generation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I apologise @ImmortalFlame for not responding to these posts. They got lost in the mix and I actually felt like I had addressed them sufficiently, though not specifically to you.

No worries - I can see you obviously have a lot to deal with and respond to right now.

And this is where the problem begins. The "evidence" that you point to, as demonstrated by the videos provided by shawn101, are interpreted by those who have an agenda.....their "proof" is in their interpretation of the evidence.

Again, no. Nobody here, or in these videos, has claimed "proof", only "evidence". Furthermore, I see no evidence whatsover of any kind og agenda on their part - that is something you will have to demonstrate. You are talking about people using processes far more complicated than you are giving them credit for, with years of expertise in their respective fields, and you are dismissing their claims off-handedly because you, personally, do not like their conclusions. This is a fallacy. No matter how absurd something may seem to you, this does not diminish its support or its validity. To constantly behave in such a way as to ignore or dismiss any and all evidence just because you find one or two pieces of it difficult to believe is a demonstration of a fallacy.

I challenge their interpretation. Since there is no real "proof" as you have admitted, then the subject is open for all to determine for themselves.

I'm afraid that's not how it works. It is not open for "all to determine for themselves" any more than an operation being watched by close family members can be guided directly by their advice. You and I have neither the skill, nor the experience or understanding, to sufficiently pose a meaningful challenge of these facts, and the veracity or reasons behind their interpretation as evidence. You may dismiss the evidence if you like, but this does not mean that you interpretation is just as justified as theirs.

If you cannot see the supposition and suggestion in the language used to describe what "happened" when no one was there to record the data, then all you have is their opinion about what they "think" happened. True?

False. You have a hypothesis, until it is tested against th erelevant facts and used to create a model which can make successful predictions. Then you have a theory. Arte you honestly suggesting that we cannot possibly gather facts and make educated judgements about past events purely because "no one was there to record the data"? Do you not understand how evidence and inference work?

That's an odd thing to say.......you believe in "seemingly impossible things" except the ones that involve a Creator?
Isn't that just pure bias?

Nope. I believe whatever the evidence indicates. My supposed C"common sense" dictates that an object cannot be in two places at once, or occupy two conflicting states simultaneously. However, the evidence for quantum physics shows differently. What may seem impossible TO YOU may just be something you find difficult or inconvenient to believe - but that does not make it false. Not all claims are created equal.

Also, I don't believe the existence of a creator is impossible. That's presumption on your part.

Ah, now we are getting to the hub of the argument. When you say "apparently branched off" you yourself are indicating an assumption.

No, I am indicating uncertainty. It's what people do when they are being intellectually honest in debates. The current model of the tree of life is still changing, and new branches and evolutionary pathways are constantly being discovered - but the point is that this is what the evidence indicates.

If you have an issue with people using qualifiers as part of their language when debating scientific issues, then it's something you're going to have to learn to deal with. The uncertainty of scientific claims is what adds to the reliability of science as a method of understanding reality. If you're looking for absolute certainties, stick to religion and do not attempt to engage with science on any level.

Either something is fact or it is an assumption.....which?

False dichotomy. Either something is a tentative conclusion drawn from the evidence, or else it is a hypothesis - neither is true or false until demonstrated to be so.

I do not see "proof" for this 'apparent branching off' to have ever occurred.

You're using that word again.

It is based on assumptions and interpretation of "evidence"....yet the evidence is not enough to convict.

... Says you. What formal training do you have in science? How much of the evidence have you viewed yourself? What can you tell me about fossils and ERV's that makes them insufficient to demonstrate the validity of common ancestry?

Circumstantial evidence can be very misleading. How many innocent people have spent years in jail because of circumstantial evidence?

Fossils and genetics are not circumstantial.

The Bible says that all living "kinds" are designed and created.

I have no interest whatsoever in what the Bible, or any other supposedly holy text, has to say about the matter of genetic classification. Why even bring it up?

Their physical structure I believe is proof of intelligent design.

How? Show your working.

[Their ability to adapt to changing environments is inbuilt. It does not need God's intervention or direction....it is programmed like all the instincts of living things to perpetuate their own species.

This shows that you simply do no understand genetics. Adaptation is caused by unconscious processes that occur during replication of genetic sequences and the attrition of natural environments. It is not "instinctive", nor is there any reason to suggest it is.

Even varieties within species do not crossbreed in nature, keeping them separate and distinct.

I think you'll find "varieties within species" crossbreed all the time.

And since mutations are usually defective, the rate of beneficial mutations would be a rarity.

This is outright false, as I have said earlier. The vast majority of mutations are neutral. A tiny, tiny minority of mutations are negative, and an equally tiny minority of mutations are positive. Can you please tell me where you are getting your information that mutations are "usually defective" from?

The rate of detrimental mutations resulting in the defect dying out is more in line with reality. Adaptation is not just a beneficial mutation...it is an inbuilt ability programmed into the creature's DNA.

Please demonstrate this.

There is no substantial proof that one species ever evolved into a completely different species altogether though is there?

AGAIN, "proof" is not the word you should be using.

And also, AGAIN, species don't evolve into "completely different species". Populations can divide into different species, but they still remain in the clade that they were originally. New species evolve all of the time, but a new species that is "completely different altogether" is not something predicted by evolutionary theory.

If the horse did not change from a four legged, furred animal in 55 million years, where is the proof that anything else did?

Again, STOP USING THE WORD "PROOF", the word to use is "EVIDENCE", and iyou're looking for it, here is some information:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Synapsids and the Evolution of Mammals
"The evidence lines up in early mammal evolution"
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
This Picture Has Creationists Terrified | Mother Jones

Documented by whom? Men of science who wish to interpret the "evidence" to suit their own beliefs.

No, you don't get to do that. Whenever an inconvenient fact happens to be placed in front of you, you cannot immediately cry "conspiracy". If you wish to engage in honest debate with me on this subject, you must drop this ridiculous idea that scientists are this secretive cabal determined to obscure the facts about reality for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I cannot reason with someone who is determined that every fact that doesn't agree with their beliefs can only be the result of some cloak and dagger activities by a some kind of cult of atheists.

What is their agenda? There is no Creator! How do you think they are going to interpret the "evidence" they have?

Their agenda is "find out the truth about reality through the scientific method". No matter what you may believe, there is no "anti-God agenda" in science. One of the leading figures in evolutionary biology today is the geneticist (and head of the human genome project) Kenneth R. Miller, whose work has provided some of the most solid evidence for human-ape common ancestry - and he is a practising Roman Catholic: Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Ken Miller's Evolution Page .

Prof. Miller is only one of the MILLIONS of practising theists currently at work in evolutionary biology today. This supposed agenda simply does not exist in science. There is literally no reason whatsoever for scientists to try and perpetuate some form of "atheist agenda", and there is absolutely no evidence of any of their findings that currently remain a part of evolutionary theory were influenced by any kind of agenda. You are making a claim that does not stand up to the facts.

I believe that the Bible is well documented too. It names places and people whose existence is verifiable in history. That will not make you believe what it says though, will it?

Of course not. But there's a difference between observed events, documented events and predictions. The Bible makes lots of references to figures who can be verified to have existed historically, but it also makes a lot of claims that have no been verified by history (the great flood, Herod's slaughtering of the first borns, any of Christ's miracles). The place the claims comes from isn't what matters - facts always stand on their own merits.

I would leave it up to those who are familiar with the animals biology to determine their species.
Kolibri has provided the Bible's definition of a "kind".

And it is more-or-less identical to our current definition of species, therefore - since we have directly observed speciation - the Biblical taxonomy of "kinds" is not a barrier to evolution.

When we take this kind of approach, what is achieved?

The issue as I see it is that micro-evolution is being used to prove macro-evolution.

They are exactly the same process, only over different amounts of time. On top of this, we have (in some cases, literal) mountains of evidence for common ancestry. It's not simply like we looked a new species of finch evolve from another species and say "Well, I guess that proves that all life came from amoebas!" We looked at the process that occurred and wondered how much genetic variation it could account for. After over a hundred years of research, the current model explains that it can account for the whole of genetic diversity, and all of the evidence we have unearthed in that time lends strength to this theory.

The evidence does not support that conclusion from what I have read.

Sadly, from what I have read, I do not think you have read much about the evidence for evolution. Not only that, but you have made several statements that demonstrate, quite clearly, that you do not understand the process of evolution at all.

Adaptation is a creature's ability to make small changes in its appearance or physiology to facilitate changing food supplies or camouflage as a defence mechanism. The creature stays within its genetically programmed "kind".

Evidence, please. I have already explained thgat this requires two different kinds of DNA to exist. Since no such distinction exists, how can this be true? If kinds are, as previously stated, defined by their inability to breed with other "kinds", then we have already directly OBSERVED that kinds DO NOT stay "within their genetically programmed kind".

Macro-evolution goes way beyond adaptation to suggest that a single called organism that somehow popped into existence millions of years ago somehow made itself into all that we have seen as life on this planet.
Now tell me that is not a stretch of anyone's imagination?

Sure it's a stretch to imagine it. How does that make it any less true, or how does that refute any of the evidence for it?

Yet you dismiss the idea of a supernatural Creator as if that is a stretch. You can have your stretch...I will have mine.

They're not even remotely equal. I accept "my stretch" because all of the available evidence supports it. You accept God on faith, with absolutely no evidence of any kind. They are not equal claims just because you want them to be.

Do you assume that the computer that you are using at the moment had no designer....no one to actually design and manufacture the various components and purposefully assemble them in the correct order to produce a fully functioning instrument? Any parts missing or defective would fail to see it operate correctly.

Dodging the point by making a variation on the watchmaker argument will not earn you any credibility with me. I am not debating theology - I am debating evolutionary science.

You have to have an inordinate amount of trust in the interpretation of their evidence to believe that.

Not if I have seen, read about and understand the evidence of their "interpretation" for myself.

I have that kind of trust in my Creator......not in flawed humans who can make the evidence suggest whatever they like.

See above.

That is a meaningless statement.

No it is not. It's very simple. Do you understand that there is no such thing as a "non-transitional" species?

No you have someone's opinion about those fossils.

No, I have a conclusion reached through years of observation and experimentation about what these fossils tells us. Facts are not opinions, no matter how much you wish them to be.

The "mountains of evidence" have been interpreted by men who believe there is no Creator, so how do you think they are going to present their findings?

Flat-out lie. Millions of scientists are theists. This kind of blind ignorance and blatant dishonesty is unbecoming of you.

Weight of numbers is hardly a gauge for truth. If all have the same agenda, all will influence one another to produce the desired conclusions.

Its not about weight of numbers, it is about weight of expertise. If your car breaks down and a thousand people tell you to buy new wheels, but a hundred mechanics tell you you need a new exhaust, who should you believe?

 

[`mud]

Without taking anyone to task:
There have been un-told millions of species changed through cross-breading.
And that includes humankind.
From the pale, blonde, siberian to the tremendously blackened African,
from the asiatic foreheads to the original Australian aberationies,
and the ever migrating aberational cultures of the Americas.
These people were seperate from each other until cross-breading started.
And this crossing will continue into tommorrows light.
As also will all animals in the control of nature's bidding.
No-one has any proof that any particular form of life was created,
not by any form of 'gods or saviours' life and nature are totally in control.
Until some alien meteor collides with Earth, nothing will remain the same.
Like I've always said, Life is Stuff, and until that meteor hits,
everything will eventual change, except Jay Jay, with him there is no help !
Nuff Stuff
~
'mud

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, no verifiable facts, just hypothesis and conjecture. And then they suggest that the design of our eyes is somehow defective....compared to what? An eagle's vision?

Well, let's compare, shall we?
There is no evidence of a global flood. There is no evidence of the existence of an Ark that would have been too small for two of each animal anyways.
There is no evidence that someone who had died can come back to life.
We know the many languages of the world did not originate from a single point in time and location.
We have no evidence that Jesus existed.
We have no evidence that there was a Garden of Eden.
We know, by examining the fossil record, paleozoic life was before the dinosaurs, and dinosaurs did not exist while paleozoic life roamed the earth; we know dinosaurs came before humans, and humans did not exist while dinosaurs did. The fossil record would show them all together had they all existed during the same times, but this is not what we see. Rather we see layers, with each form of life restricted to the time frame of their own corresponding layers.
There is no evidence of a Sodom and Gomorrah.
There is no evidence to support the Exodus happened.

 

[outhouse]

Am I? I have seen no facts so far

You never will

You have admitted to fanaticism a long time ago.

 

[outhouse]

These people were seperate from each other until cross-breading started.

False

We started from one color and pigment changed due to lack of sunlight. From there the tree branched out, and back in again.

 

[McBell]

What corner is that? I stand by everything I've said.

What tactic?.......telling the truth? All you have to do is see through the language that evolutionists use and you can plainly see what we see.....but only if you want to. Those "outside my choir" are free to make up their own minds.

My God is not known by you Mestemia so why should you care what he thinks? You are entitled to disbelieve like everyone else who swallows the evolution fallacy. Not my business.

The truth will be known one day, won't it?

Your blatant denial is most comical.
Not the least bit surprising given the level of dishonesty you subscribe to.

Since you refuse to engage in honest discourse in this thread, I shall leave you to baste in your Pigeon Glory.

 

[`mud]

hey Out,
Some rethinking is needed here, I suppose.
The sun doesn't have anything do with it.
The genes are everything.
Check the skulls, and some other formats.
Certainly look at the eyes also.
I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
~
'mud

 

[FearGod]

Well, let's compare, shall we?
There is no evidence of a global flood. There is no evidence of the existence of an Ark that would have been too small for two of each animal anyways.
There is no evidence that someone who had died can come back to life.
We know the many languages of the world did not originate from a single point in time and location.
We have no evidence that Jesus existed.
We have no evidence that there was a Garden of Eden.
We know, by examining the fossil record, paleozoic life was before the dinosaurs, and dinosaurs did not exist while paleozoic life roamed the earth; we know dinosaurs came before humans, and humans did not exist while dinosaurs did. The fossil record would show them all together had they all existed during the same times, but this is not what we see. Rather we see layers, with each form of life restricted to the time frame of their own corresponding layers.
There is no evidence of a Sodom and Gomorrah.
There is no evidence to support the Exodus happened.

I think we suppose to discuss the creation whether if it was due to ID or by the inanimate stone or nature if you wish, we aren't discussing historical stories here.

 

[JayJayDee]

I missed this in the flurry......but it needs addressing.

The strange thing with "kinds" in the Bible is that doves and ravens are in the same "bird kind", but are supposed to be separate kinds according to the Noah story. Noah had both doves and ravens. Supposedly that's what he sent out. That means that every "bird kind", 10,000 or more would have been on the ark. 2 of each unclean bird-kind, and 7 pairs of the clean ones (whatever they were). So, at least 20,000 birds, but perhaps closer to 100,000. And here's an interesting fact, birds will resort to pecking and even cannibalism if not given enough space. Birds are easily stressed.

Do you assume that the Creator has human limitations? I don't. Any being who can create the universe and the diversity of life on this unique speck of a planet, has the power to serve his own purpose in whatever way he pleases. He doesn't need our permission to exist....we need his.

From your point of view, those of us who believe in creation are not going to make evolution go away in the minds and hearts of those who wish to believe it. Conversely those who believe in evolution cannot make the Creator go away in the minds and hearts of those who accept his existence either.

It was not Noah who chose the creatures that went on board the ark...it was God who brought them to Noah. So whatever creatures were brought on board the ark, the Creator 'selected' them. Since he created them in the first place, he had all the genetics needed to re-establish life on earth. Who knows what he was capable of doing after that....he doesn't say, but when things have God's backing, they happen just as he says. He is not limited by the abilities that humans place on him.

Another question, did Noah also keep goldfish, betta fish and such on the ark? Just because they're fish won't mean they would survive such a turbulent flood with whirlpools etc.

There were no marine creatures mentioned as being on the ark. Whatever marine creatures survived outside the ark was in God's jurisdiction.

Or what about mayflies?

Specimens of all land dwelling creatures were brought into the ark according to Genesis....no specifics. (Gen 6:13-22)

Or a proper habitat for some tropical plants? Or plants that can't handle tropical at all? Did Noah have temperature and humidity controlling equipment? Perhaps the first hydroponics and artificial light even?

What plants? The only vegetation brought into the ark was food for themselves and the animals....again, following the Creators instructions.

Amazing what those aliens can do...

Yes it is...in fact the dimensions of the ark made it so stable that when scale models were tested in wave tanks, they found it was virtually impossible to sink even in the most severe simulated weather conditions. That is why those same ratios of height to width to depth are used in ship building to this day. Noah was given specifications as to materials and dimensions of the structure, which he build from scratch. It would have taken decades to complete.

The ark was not a boat, however...it was a huge box-like structure, with no bow or stern like modern ships. It was not designed for navigation but only to float....which it did beautifully.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you assume that the Creator has human limitations? I don't. Any being who can create the universe and the diversity of life on this unique speck of a planet, has the power to serve his own purpose in whatever way he pleases. He doesn't need our permission to exist....we need his.

Do you assume that the Creator has human limitation? I don't. But you do!

To you, the Creator has to create the world like a handyman or carpenter would do, but not as a mathematician, game programmer, engineer, or scientist would do. Humans have expanded beyond the nitty-gritty one-piece-at-a-time designs. We have now software that do it for us. God can't do that according to you but has to handcraft each and every snowflake.

From your point of view, those of us who believe in creation are not going to make evolution go away in the minds and hearts of those who wish to believe it. Conversely those who believe in evolution cannot make the Creator go away in the minds and hearts of those who accept his existence either.

After taking a couple of classes in the topic, no, I can't make it go away in my mind simply because it's beautiful and solid. It's the only solution that works for the things that we do know about nature.

It was not Noah who chose the creatures that went on board the ark...it was God who brought them to Noah. So whatever creatures were brought on board the ark, the Creator 'selected' them. Since he created them in the first place, he had all the genetics needed to re-establish life on earth. Who knows what he was capable of doing after that....he doesn't say, but when things have God's backing, they happen just as he says. He is not limited by the abilities that humans place on him.

Why did God need samples of the kinds on the ark at all? If God can create any kind of genetic code from anything, then he didn't need anything at all. And since they were only "kinds" and all other 5 million species evolved from those "kinds", it shows that the story is stupid. He only needed a frog, and God could have super-evolved all species back again.

There were no marine creatures mentioned as being on the ark. Whatever marine creatures survived outside the ark was in God's jurisdiction.

Aha. Sure. Magic explains it all.

Specimens of all land dwelling creatures were brought into the ark according to Genesis....no specifics. (Gen 6:13-22)

They live only one day. I guess he could have saved some eggs. But why bother, when God could've created them again?

What plants? The only vegetation brought into the ark was food for themselves and the animals....again, following the Creators instructions.

So how did the plants come back after being flushed down to the ocean floor or buried under tons of mud? I'm not sure you understand the size of this supposed flood.

Yes it is...in fact the dimensions of the ark made it so stable that when scale models were tested in wave tanks, they found it was virtually impossible to sink even in the most severe simulated weather conditions. That is why those same ratios of height to width to depth are used in ship building to this day. Noah was given specifications as to materials and dimensions of the structure, which he build from scratch. It would have taken decades to complete.

These wouldn't have been regular weather conditions. Someone made a calculation once of the frictional forces and pressure produced by this size of a rain, and the pressure alone would bring the temperatures to a boil.

The ark was not a boat, however...it was a huge box-like structure, with no bow or stern like modern ships. It was not designed for navigation but only to float....which it did beautifully.

With the intense forces pushing it down (tons of pressure), and whirlpools that would be created by such force, it would look like a pingpong ball in a bucket where you spray with a firehose on it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On a side note, I'd just like to say that, since JayJayDee seems to really dislike the use of the conditional, I have formulated the perfect argument to completely destroy his position! Below are the quotes from the article posted about the evolution of the eye, with alterations made by me in order to now make them completely impenetrable to JayJayDee's complete refusal to accept any claim that dares to engage in the use of conditional qualifiers:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists DEFINITELY KNOW the scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, WHICH DEFINITELY HAVE gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to DEMONSTRATE the various evolutionary stages eyes DEFINITELY HAS gone through.

Here's how some scientists KNOW some eyes DEFINITELY have evolved:

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye



Evolution of the Eye
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be

So intricate is the eye that its origin has long been a cause célèbre among creationists and intelligent design proponents, who hold it up as a prime example of what they term irreducible complexity—a system that cannot function in the absence of any of its components and that therefore cannot have evolved naturally from a more primitive form. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged in On the
Origin of Species
—the 1859 book detailing his theory of evolution by natural selection—that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by BUT WE STILL HAVE IT. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize. And even when they do, the fossils do not preserve nearly enough detail to establish how the structures evolved. Still, biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results DEFINITELY SHOW that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea.
They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.


There. Now that I have removed all conditional qualifiers and clauses, you cannot possibly have any means by which to dismiss this article. No need to thank me, folks!

 

[JayJayDee]

Just reading through some more of the links provided by opponents of creation here, and again we see something telling in the language.....


"Looking at complexity

Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?

Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.
Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?

There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:

• Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.
  
  
  
  A Planaria flatworm with its light-sensitive eyespots.
  
  
  
• Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions.
  
  

Looking at complexity


Conclusion? That is a lot of "might have's" and "could have's".....and how likely is "likely"? Is this the language of proven scientific facts? Why is it glossed over that this theory is subject to pure speculation, based on imagined outcomes?

How can macro-evolution possibly be claimed to be a "fact" when it is clearly NOT FACT at all, but pure educated guessing?

 

[JayJayDee]

On a side note, I'd just like to say that, since JayJayDee seems to really dislike the use of the conditional, I have formulated the perfect argument to completely destroy his position! Below are the quotes from the article posted about the evolution of the eye, with alterations made by me in order to now make them completely impenetrable to JayJayDee's complete refusal to accept any claim that dares to engage in the use of conditional qualifiers:

So you have to change what they actually say in order to make it more believable????? Really?

There. Now that I have removed all conditional qualifiers and clauses, you cannot possibly have any means by which to dismiss this article. No need to thank me, folks!

And you speak for all scientists with that bit of verbal sleight of hand do you? Perhaps you need to go and alter all the pro-evolution writings to support your assertions.....just substitute more assertions for the ones that are already there......more imagination at work. What's new?

You can't make conjecture and guesswork into a fact.

 

[Ouroboros]

Conclusion? That is a lot of "might have's" and "could have's".....and how likely is "likely"? Is this the language of proven scientific facts? Why is it glossed over that this theory is subject to pure speculation, based on imagined outcomes?

But you're missing where it says, "And here we can see..." and "Here is..." for the evidence. The "might have's" are the attempt to explain the reason to why one thing evolved this or that way. It's not, "it might have evolved" when they're showing you a picture of "this evolved", and then explain "it might have evolved because of..."