Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[outhouse]

I most certainly did. Ken Miller made a dishonest claim, and I exposed it, along with his idiocy.

You don't have the education to call Ken anything except sir. As you have not refuted a single word of his with any credible knowledge.

Taking his words out of context will do you no good.

That you refuse to accept this clear-cut fact demonstrates how unreasonable, emotion-driven, and dare I say dishonest, you are.

Looking in a mirror I see.

Sir you can refuse facts until the sun goes down. But in the end what I and Ken follow is fact, and taught in every credible university in ever civilized country.

What you posit is outlawed from innocent school children.

Now, begone from my sight before I block you, anti-science fiend.

Wow name calling out of desperation, how kind of you I see your religion has taught you how to be a perfect gentlemen.

How can I be a fiend for following facts?

Please put me on ignore, I require honest debates from those who use credible education and have a desire for truth.

 

[outhouse]

So he wasn't completely wrong in the first quote

The problem was that jared quote mined this, and only used a small portion of what was being taught. Then denounced all of evolution.


You on the other hand may be correct.

 

[outhouse]

anti-science fiend.

Ha ha.

Its funny coming from a creationist with no credible knowledge of biology, who barely knows how to quote mine out of context.

It seems your main method here is not to understand evidence. You only desperately try to denounce evidence.

Typical creationist tactic is to go into scientific areas of study with multiple opinions and exploit what is still being studied. All the while ignoring the credible work that leads up to specific grey areas.

 

[shawn001]

Nothing can be evolved without being created first, it doesn't make any sense.

Created yes, but not in the steps you think in the slightest.

 

[shawn001]

So what if a Christian movement ?! , we discuss the ideas and not religion.

Yes, reality is differ than what fact is, strange statement but a true one

For example we know that gravity is a fact but we don't know the reality behind it and as i said 1+1 = 2 is a fact but isn't the reality
Fossils are facts but not the reality, we only make a guess work for what had happened, atheists make stories to support their ideas that God wasn't needed, for them the inanimate stone did it or in other words the nature, whereas theists (as me) support intelligence and design or in other words God did it.

Fossils are one of hundreds of lines of evidence, there is WAY more to it then that, micro and macro evolution are a strong a theory as plate tectonics.

"(as me) support intelligence and design or in other words God did it."

Okay show how god did it, because that is what we are showing you through all of science, and your adding supernatural.

"
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

Its also illegal to teach creationism or ID in the US public schools. All of your arguments failed from the Christian ID movement and their lies and death threats. Se above. Seriously!

 

[JayJayDee]

Created yes, but not in the steps you think in the slightest.

You assume that there are "steps" but these are not established "facts" except in the estimations of those men of science whom you assume can't interpret their evidence in the wrong way, leading them to false conclusions. Yet their language suggests that they are leaving their options open. A fact isn't changeable, whereas an assumption is accepted as fact until something comes along to show that it is false.

If there is a Creator and he did design and manufacture all the originals, then where does that leave your theory?
How do some evolutionists say that the existence of a Creator would make no difference? To my way of thinking, it will utterly destroy it.

 

[shawn001]

You assume that there are "steps" but these are not established "facts" except in the estimations of those men of science whom you assume can't interpret their evidence in the wrong way, leading them to false conclusions. Yet their language suggests that they are leaving their options open. A fact isn't changeable, whereas an assumption is accepted as fact until something comes along to show that it is false.

If there is a Creator and he did design and manufacture all the originals, then where does that leave your theory?
How do some evolutionists say that the existence of a Creator would make no difference? To my way of thinking, it will utterly destroy it.

"If there is a Creator and he did design and manufacture all the originals, then where does that leave your theory?"

One its not my theory and millions of scientists who go through peer review and there is something called falsifiable as well.


"You assume that there are "steps" but these are not established "facts" "

Yes millions of them are facts and its based on billions of facts and we know the whole universe evolved and is evolving and even humans right now for a fact.

So this

""If there is a Creator and he did design and manufacture all the originals, then where does that leave your theory?""

Leaves the theory of evolution in place.

 

[shawn001]

JayJayDee, the country you live in is a fine example of evolution in fact, some of if not the oldest rocks in the world. The history of the continent and plate tectonics and life forms their that evolved because of it or got separated from others on Earth.

"
Evolution Down Under

• The animal kingdom as developed in Australia presents us with anomalies and peculiarities perhaps even more remarkable than are exhibited by the plants.Alfred Russel Wallace, Australasia, 1893

Australia, the smallest of the seven continents, is the world capital of two of the three types of mammal on Earth: the marsupials, like the kangaroo and koala, which nourish their young in pouches, and the monotremes, featuring the platypus and the echidnas, which nourish their young in eggs. (The third variety, placentals, include all the rest of us—from mice to whales to people—which nourish their young in an advanced placenta.)

How did this happen? Why did Australia get a preponderance of pouched and egg-laying mammals? And, at the same time, precious few of the kind of mammal that dominates every other land in the world?

The story is a long one—say, 100 million years or more—and for decades was missing key sections. Only in recent years have paleontologists succeeded in filling in some of those gaps to their satisfaction, enabling them to draw a reasonably detailed portrait of Australia's unique evolutionary history."

NOVA | Evolution Down Under

 

[JayJayDee]

JayJayDee, the country you live in is a fine example of evolution in fact, some of if not the oldest rocks in the world. The history of the continent and plate tectonics and life forms their that evolved because of it or got separated from others on Earth.

"
Evolution Down Under

• The animal kingdom as developed in Australia presents us with anomalies and peculiarities perhaps even more remarkable than are exhibited by the plants.Alfred Russel Wallace, Australasia, 1893

Australia, the smallest of the seven continents, is the world capital of two of the three types of mammal on Earth: the marsupials, like the kangaroo and koala, which nourish their young in pouches, and the monotremes, featuring the platypus and the echidnas, which nourish their young in eggs. (The third variety, placentals, include all the rest of us—from mice to whales to people—which nourish their young in an advanced placenta.)

How did this happen? Why did Australia get a preponderance of pouched and egg-laying mammals? And, at the same time, precious few of the kind of mammal that dominates every other land in the world?

The story is a long one—say, 100 million years or more—and for decades was missing key sections. Only in recent years have paleontologists succeeded in filling in some of those gaps to their satisfaction, enabling them to draw a reasonably detailed portrait of Australia's unique evolutionary history."

NOVA | Evolution Down Under

shawn101, we have exactly the same wording in this link as all the others. Why can you not acknowledge it?

Let me demonstrate again what is said.....

"The story is a long one—say, 100 million years or more—and for decades was missing key sections. Only in recent years have paleontologists succeeded in filling in some of those gaps to their satisfaction, enabling them to draw a reasonably detailed portrait of Australia's unique evolutionary history."

So with what are these palaeontologists "filling in the gaps" with a "reasonably detailed portrait"? A tooth.

Tell me what artist can paint a portrait of a person from looking at a single tooth?

TOOTH BE TOLD
Two long-standing questions were answered, remarkably enough, by a single fossil tooth. Or two single fossil teeth actually, unearthed on opposite sides of the globe, both in 1992.

OK....do we have full fossils here? Or do we have just a single tooth from opposite sides of the world?

Until sometime in the Cretaceous Period (146 to 65 million years ago), Australia, Antarctica, and South America all abutted one another in the southern supercontinent Gondwana. While they were attached, experts believe a single belt of forest likely stretched from southeastern Australia, through Antarctica, and into southern South America, and they know that early versions of all three mammal models existed at the time. Yet today no monotremes exist outside of Australia (and New Guinea), and no placental mammals that didn't fly or swim there—for example, bats or dugongs—exist in Australia except for rodents (which arrived only about five million years ago) and mammals that were introduced by people (who arrived by 60,000 years ago).

Why didn't monotremes use the connection to leave Australia? And why didn't placentals use it to enter Australia?

One of the teeth, uncovered in Argentina from deposits 63 to 61 million years old, answered the first question.

That is a lot of information gathered from a single tooth. Seriously.

Monotremes had lived elsewhere, for paleontologists determined that the tooth belonged to a platypus, an extinct species now known as the Patagonian platypus. (Which way the monotremes originally crossed the Antarctic bridge—from or to Australia—remains a mystery.) The second tooth, meanwhile, answered the second question. Placentals had come to Australia, for some experts believe the tooth, dug out of Queensland deposits radiometrically dated to at least 55 million years ago, belonged to a primitive, nonflying placental known as a condylarth. More recent discoveries hint that other early placentals lived in Australia, even before marsupials turn up in the fossil record.

Now I don't need to post the whole article but the language in all your links is the same...."some experts believe".... Other experts "believe" things too.....and recent discoveries "hint that" something else took place.

Where are the facts? Supposition from some experts does not a fact make. Sorry.

 

[shawn001]

JayJayDee, its because you don't have a clue about how science works or science in the general.

What can be learned by a single tooth is actually amazing if you bother to look it all up, what they ate, DNA and much more and not to mention plate tectonics? The fact your cherry picking because they are careful with the wording they use because they are still researching the questions, doesn't rule out plate tectonics and the billions of facts in the evolution of how Australia became a continent and how life has evolved there. Its still a fact.

No matter what you believe or say its not going to change evolution is a fact. If you want to change that you better get to work as a scientists and find "a single observation, a single experimental result"

Then we can talk but right now you know so little about the Earth you live and how it formed, and life on it and its history from many differnt fields of science its amazing to me. Its sad actually.

""KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is."

 

[McBell]

How do some evolutionists say that the existence of a Creator would make no difference? To my way of thinking, it will utterly destroy it.

That is because you have created for yourself a false dichotomy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How do some evolutionists say that the existence of a Creator would make no difference? To my way of thinking, it will utterly destroy it.

Because if there is a Creator, then things are still as they are. We have the same evidence, the same things we can see, the same things we can find, there is no difference. This doesn't shake up the fossil record, it doesn't alter the replication of DNA, and it doesn't change that there are many illogical systems in the universe. People are proof enough, because people are so illogical, they do not mean what they say, and are capable of inflicting a tremendous amount of unfair and undue suffering on others. If the design is intelligent, why does this design allow for such easy exploitation of others? And look around us. If the design is intelligent, why are we in the middle of countless rocks that are bigger than most Earth-mountains, chunks of space so large they may actually potentially wipe us all out tomorrow? If the design is intelligent, why is the sun so destructive, up to being fatal? And, let's be honest, if the design is intelligent why are testicles external organs?

 

[Bunyip]

shawn101, we have exactly the same wording in this link as all the others. Why can you not acknowledge it?

Let me demonstrate again what is said.....

"The story is a long one—say, 100 million years or more—and for decades was missing key sections. Only in recent years have paleontologists succeeded in filling in some of those gaps to their satisfaction, enabling them to draw a reasonably detailed portrait of Australia's unique evolutionary history."

So with what are these palaeontologists "filling in the gaps" with a "reasonably detailed portrait"? A tooth.

Tell me what artist can paint a portrait of a person from looking at a single tooth?

TOOTH BE TOLD
Two long-standing questions were answered, remarkably enough, by a single fossil tooth. Or two single fossil teeth actually, unearthed on opposite sides of the globe, both in 1992.

OK....do we have full fossils here? Or do we have just a single tooth from opposite sides of the world?

Until sometime in the Cretaceous Period (146 to 65 million years ago), Australia, Antarctica, and South America all abutted one another in the southern supercontinent Gondwana. While they were attached, experts believe a single belt of forest likely stretched from southeastern Australia, through Antarctica, and into southern South America, and they know that early versions of all three mammal models existed at the time. Yet today no monotremes exist outside of Australia (and New Guinea), and no placental mammals that didn't fly or swim there—for example, bats or dugongs—exist in Australia except for rodents (which arrived only about five million years ago) and mammals that were introduced by people (who arrived by 60,000 years ago).

Why didn't monotremes use the connection to leave Australia? And why didn't placentals use it to enter Australia?

One of the teeth, uncovered in Argentina from deposits 63 to 61 million years old, answered the first question.

That is a lot of information gathered from a single tooth. Seriously.

Monotremes had lived elsewhere, for paleontologists determined that the tooth belonged to a platypus, an extinct species now known as the Patagonian platypus. (Which way the monotremes originally crossed the Antarctic bridge—from or to Australia—remains a mystery.) The second tooth, meanwhile, answered the second question. Placentals had come to Australia, for some experts believe the tooth, dug out of Queensland deposits radiometrically dated to at least 55 million years ago, belonged to a primitive, nonflying placental known as a condylarth. More recent discoveries hint that other early placentals lived in Australia, even before marsupials turn up in the fossil record.

Now I don't need to post the whole article but the language in all your links is the same...."some experts believe".... Other experts "believe" things too.....and recent discoveries "hint that" something else took place.

Where are the facts? Supposition from some experts does not a fact make. Sorry.

You seem to have no regard for honesty. Remember when you told us that God created the laws and rules, not the artifacts themselves? You are arguing against your own claims. If god made the rules, then he would not need to design the animals.

 

[FearGod]

Fossils are one of hundreds of lines of evidence, there is WAY more to it then that, micro and macro evolution are a strong a theory as plate tectonics.

"(as me) support intelligence and design or in other words God did it."

Okay show how god did it, because that is what we are showing you through all of science, and your adding supernatural.

You don't show a logical answers as well.
Tell me where did the singularity come from, what it was before the born of the universe, the answer should be there was nothing, emptiness and vacuum, even vacuum itself isn't the right word for it as there was no reality, nothing means nothing, then from nothingness then

the universe born.
Is that what we have to learn at school.

If you have an answer that things can be created without the need for a creator, then prove it to us that it can be.
Can we create milk without its raw material being available.

EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

And that is a fact, we can't explain how it happened except by a supernatural power, nature is an Inanimate stones

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."

Does science teach you what bring the universe to existence and for what purpose ?

 

[Bunyip]

You don't show a logical answers as well.
Tell me where did the singularity come from, what it was before the born of the universe, the answer should be there was nothing, emptiness and vacuum, even vacuum itself isn't the right word for it as there was no reality, nothing means nothing, then from nothingness then

the universe born.
Is that what we have to learn at school.

If you have an answer that things can be created without the need for a creator, then prove it to us that it can be.
Can we create milk without its raw material being available.

No, so how did god come into existence? And please prove it.

And that is a fact, we can't explain how it happened except by a supernatural power, nature is an Inanimate stones



Does science teach you what bring the universe to existence and for what purpose ?

What purpose?

 

[Jared Jammer]

Question for the design-deniers: Do you believe it's possible, if only in theory, to detect design within living organisms and/or the cosmos, and if so, how?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Question for the design-deniers: Do you believe it's possible, if only in theory, to detect design within living organisms and/or the cosmos, and if so, how?

I think it is possible to think we are detecting this because we, as human beings, search for patterns and want to apply meaning to the pattern. Many superstitions are based on this. Lucky-objects, bad-luck behavior, Western Karma, what makes a traffic light change color, whatever it is, we seek out patterns and try to give them meaning.

 

[Jared Jammer]

I think it is possible to think we are detecting this because we, as human beings, search for patterns and want to apply meaning to the pattern. Many superstitions are based on this. Lucky-objects, bad-luck behavior, Western Karma, what makes a traffic light change color, whatever it is, we seek out patterns and try to give them meaning.

Your argument is a double-edged sword, and I'd argue the edge pointing at your view is much sharper than the edge pointing at mine. Let's not forget, the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biology comes down to patterns: Patterns in the fossil record, patterns in morphology, patterns in genomes, etc. -- patterns which allegedly show relatedness, gradual change, and common descent. Shall we apply your critique to it?

"Evolution's not real; it's just our pattern-seeking brains looking for meaning where there is none."

Works for me.

 

[Ouroboros]

Question for the design-deniers: Do you believe it's possible, if only in theory, to detect design within living organisms and/or the cosmos, and if so, how?

No.

Here are three number series:

23482437520957109347239457823094837092487134908945872359031847394572957

57931579939935157624688086024687573717399774610103887005111010010019871

01001000100001000001000000100000001000000001000000000100000000001000000

Can you tell which one of these were designed? And which one is not? One is a mathematical sequence. One is handpicked numbers by me that I just liked at the moment (designed). And one was number I randomly clicked on the keyboard. Now, it should be obvious which one is which. So which one is designed? A, B, or C, and give a reason.

And here are 10 more sequences. Can you say which one is designed and which one is random?

085784383827967976681454100953883786360950680064225125205117392984896084128488 626945604241965285022210661186306744278622039194945047123713786960956364371917 287467764657573962413890865832645995813390478027590099465764078951269468398352 595709825822620522489407726719478268482601476990902640136394437455305068203496 252451749399651431429809190659250937221696461515709858387410597885959772975498 930161753928468138268683868942774155991855925245953959431049972524680845987273 644695848653836736222626099124608051243884390451244136549762780797715691435997 700129616089441694868555848406353422072225828488648158456028506016842739452267 467678895252138522549954666727823986456596116354886230577456498035593634568174 324112515076069479451096596094025228879710893145669136867228748940560101503308

Spoiler: Answer:

A) Random
B) Handpicked, i.e. designed
C) Algorithm.

The following 10 number sequences: All based on mathematical algorithm. None design, nor random. They're all picked from sequences in π.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your argument is a double-edged sword, and I'd argue the edge pointing at your view is much sharper than the edge pointing at mine. Let's not forget, the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biology comes down to patterns: Patterns in the fossil record, patterns in morphology, patterns in genomes, etc. -- patterns which allegedly show relatedness, gradual change, and common descent. Shall we apply your critique to it?

"Evolution's not real; it's just our pattern-seeking brains looking for meaning where there is none."

Works for me.

Good point.

500,000 fossils all point to evolution. Genetics point to evolution. Modern medicine and agriculture point to evolution. And so on.

It's not just the pattern in the fossil record. The fossil record is just the family picture album we have. But it's not the only evidence for evolution.