The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

I did but you just blew off my post & link on "speciation".

So you can't state in your own words any experiment exists that shows any species ever underwent any gradual change as a result of "survival of the fittest".

What you have here is a belief system as surely as the individual who can't say how or when God came into existence. You believe in "Evolution" with no evidence whatsoever of any type or sort. I'm more inclined to believe in what I can see, touch, or experience. You can play with fossils until they're shiny but you can't see a gradual change in species by any means at all.

All the experiments and all observation is consistent with my theory so far as I am aware.

I'm perfectly happy to be nearly perfectly ignorant. God save us from those who know everything.

 

[cladking]

I might add I experience miracles every day but I have never experienced omniscience even for a moment.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I never claimed it couldn't be designed. Don't put words in my mouth that are yours.

Do you have evidence it is designed? Demonstrable evidence?

Yes. Me. You. Everything that exists.
The fairy tale of chance is the stuff of comedy routine.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Could it be that your understanding of God, creation and other things are as limited as your understanding of science?

Could it be that you just don't want to understand?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are so many gaps in the evolution theory it's absurd to expect people to just buy it wholeheartedly.

Such as?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Such as?

Such as parts of the fossil record that lead nowhere or never change in successive layers.
It's not a tree, it's a bush with many branches missing.
But the real problem is that the idea that one kind of animal becomes another kind is just that, an unproven idea.

 

[ppp]

But the real problem is that the idea that one kind of animal becomes another kind is just that, an unproven idea.

Since 'kind' is a creationist fiction that even they cannot define, that is not an issue for evolution. You may as well tell botanists that flowers are an unproven idea because they can't account for garden fairies.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Since 'kind' is a creationist fiction that even they cannot define, that is not an issue for evolution. You may as well tell botanists that flowers are an unproven idea because they can't account for garden fairies.

Actually it's defined pretty well so I'm not sure why it's hard to understand.

 

[ppp]

Actually it's defined pretty well.

You are full of big talk but fail to deliver, as usual. Your words are all hat, and no cattle.
In other words...
all bluff and bluster; all booster, no payload; all crown, no filling; all foam, no beer; all hammer, no nail; all icing, no cake; all lime and salt, no tequila; all mouth and no trousers; all shot, no powder; all sizzle and no steak; all talk and no action; all wax and no wick; all motion and no meat; all show, no go; all fur coat and no knickers;

 

[Valjean]

Lol, a chemical mechanism needs chemicals to exist. They have to come from something, as everything does.

No. This seems like common sense, but reality does not conform to our commonsense ideas of how things work.
How did these chemicals come to be?

So what are you claiming, then? -- that because something exists, humans were created by magic in one fell swoop?
Claiming God made matter/chemicals is not a claim that humans are anything special, or that chemical evolution does not occur.

So how is your claim that "chemicals came from somewhere" related to the issues being discussed here?

Well duh. That's what I'm talking about, creation.

Ceation = the Big Bang?

But what does that have to do with evolution, or with humans being a "special creation" -- by which I assume you mean 'popped into existence by magic'. What does it have to do with the ability of the laws of chemistry and physics to generate life and the many species we see today?

What mechanism do you attribute this to?

Of course I know. So they can't object to a religious explanation of what they are ignorant about.

But there is no religious explanation. A claim of agency is not an explanation. An explanation describes the mechanism by which something occurs, not who did it.

 

[gnostic]

So we are either in the most elaborate hoax of all time or a God created this place .. you have had no real response to the computer and artistic analogies, just weak claims that it couldn't be designed.

You really should understand that analogies are neither logical proof of Designer existence, nor are they physical evidence fo the claim of Designer.

Analogies are mere just more claims, but you are comparing Designer with something else that’s completely different.

The artist analogy for instance, is not trying to design physical life or the physical universe.

Plus artists are not some literally invisible beings; no they (artists) are humans with parents, and you actually meet them in person and even watch them work. They would have birth certificates (evidence they were born to this date and place, with the names of their parents), they would also have education records, social security numbers, bank records, tax records, etc, which are evidence that point to artists existence as humans. Artists that good can sell their works to an art gallery, or a private collector, or they make their money receiving in the form of commissions, from a benefactor.

Artists only draw, paint or sculpt, that may look naturalistic or realistic, but they do so using only pen on paper, paint on canvas, or chisel on stone or bronze; artists don’t actually design or create real living physical life, nor do they design or create physical Earth or the whole universe.

So using the artist analogy and comparing this analogy with ID’s Designer is merely inaccurate comparison, and false equivalence (logical fallacy).

Using analogy on Intelligent Design or on Creationism, isn’t evidence for Designer or for God. All you and other creationists are doing just adding new claims, that have no bearing what Designer is.

And creationists are only fooling themselves, because they still don’t what physical evidence is or what logical prove is.

All I see with with your claims, using analogy, is just making BS.

You say you can logically prove Designer existence, but you use artist analogy. But as I have pointed out, the artist is only human who draw or paint, artist cannot make physical life or physical universe, so the comparison is faulty and seriously flawed. This Designer isn’t human.

Now how about representing real logical proofs or physical evidence, of this Designer, and not go off topic with some pointless and useless analogies.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are full of big talk but fail to deliver, as usual. Your words are all hat, and no cattle.
In other words...
all bluff and bluster; all booster, no payload; all crown, no filling; all foam, no beer; all hammer, no nail; all icing, no cake; all lime and salt, no tequila; all mouth and no trousers; all shot, no powder; all sizzle and no steak; all talk and no action; all wax and no wick; all motion and no meat; all show, no go; all fur coat and no knickers;

You want the definition?
"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand."

Animals have undergone many changes.But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on.

 

[ppp]

You want the definition?
"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand."

But that is not a definition, @Wildswanderer. That is a series of examples. Like if someone asked you for a definition of metal, and you merely rattled of a list of things you thought were metals.

I would love a definition for the creationist 'kind'. But like I said before, there is not one.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You say you can logically prove Designer existence, but you use artist analogy. But as I have pointed out, the artist is only human who draw or paint, artist cannot make physical life or physical universe, so the comparison is faulty and seriously flawed. This Designer isn’t human.

You got that right. He is the ultimate artist and designer. We are creative, but not all powerful. . Of course all analogies aren't literal in every sense, that's what makes them analogies, but they are still useful to understand the broader reality.
You still haven't explained away creation, you are just trying to throw up smoke screens.

Ordered systems or structures do not happen spontaneously in our reality, but you seem to think that the entire universe happened spontaneously.
Of course, the entire universe teaches us just the opposite. The earth's rotation, the moon cycle, and the predictability of changing seasons are evidence for a creative designer.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But that is not a definition, @Wildswanderer. That is a series of examples. Like if someone asked you for a definition of metal, and you merely rattled of a list of things you thought were metals.

I would love a definition for the creationist 'kind'. But like I said before, there is not one.

I just gave it to you. If you can't grasp such a simple concept, well, that's not my fault.

 

[ppp]

I just gave it to you.

You did not give me a definition of creationist 'kind'. You gave me a series of examples of what you think are kinds. Examples are not definitions. You failed.

 

[Valjean]

You want the definition?
"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand."

Animals have undergone many changes.But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on.

Change is slow. Isolate a lineage, and time and breeding will eventually produce separate lineages unable to breed. Small changes accumulate into big changes. There is nothing to stop these endless small changes, is there?

Google Ring Species. Explain that.

 

[Valjean]

You got that right. He is the ultimate artist and designer.

You're preaching, plus you have no empirical evidence of this creator.
A "creation" is not evidence of an intentional creator. It's evidence of the laws of chemistry and physics at work.

You still haven't explained away creation, you are just trying to throw up smoke screens.

I don't think anyone's trying to explain away creation, ie: The Big Bang. They're just questioning your attribution of it to a conscious, intentional, magical creator..

Ordered systems or structures do not happen spontaneously in our reality, but you seem to think that the entire universe happened spontaneously.

The universe happened. Physicists are studying how this happened. Please look into their research before you go attributing it to magic and a magical personage. Science has figured out the mechanisms behind many phenomena that were once attributed to a magical god. This is just the latest.

Of course, the entire universe teaches us just the opposite. The earth's rotation, the moon cycle, and the predictability of changing seasons are evidence for a creative designer.

No. They are evidence of intentionless physics. There is no logical reason to impute a conscious creator.

 

[Tiberius]

That would not make him an infinite being...so whoever designed him would be the head honcho. You can go on forever or choose to believe in an eternal being.

So why can't we say that the universer is infinite?

And don't say "Because of the Big Bang." The Big Bang could just be the universe changing from on form to another.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. Me. You. Everything that exists.
The fairy tale of chance is the stuff of comedy routine.

Can you point to valid sources that claim that everything happened by some chance fluke?