What does the fossil record say?

[waitasec]

how embarrassing

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do it very well. You might have some trouble though.

Not able to answer the question, wilson?

Sorry - I don't do silly.

Nothing silly about it. How, exactly, do you determine something's purpose? Is it simply what that thing is "good at doing", or is it something more complex? You cannot assert that purpose is a tangible quality unless you show some means to measure it.

You're not saying that complexity is imaginary - are you?

Nope. I'm saying it's not a tangible quality of something - it's a designation we put on things. Complexity exists because we define it into existence.

I won't play your semantics game.

It's not a semantics game. If you're going to use "purpose" as part of your argument, you need to be clear with your definitions.

A fool is a person who works, consistently, against his own interests.

So, a person who works against the advancement of science? Like, a creationist or ID proponent?

What is the right conclusion?

The conclusion indicated by the evidence and examination.

Except for one thing:]
That is not what I said. More of your word-twisting?
Don't try to twist my words. You won't get very far.

I wasn't twisting your words at all. Your argument was very clear:

"If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious."

This conclusion means the exact same thing as "complexity + purpose = __________, therefore design". You just claimed that if complexity lends itself to a purpose, then design is obvious. I'm asking how you got from "complexity and purpose" to "therefore it must be designed", since things that are no inherently designed can be said to be complex or have a purpose. Your logic is either flawed or nonexistent.

You seem to forget - an atheist is an unbeliever who will deny the obvious.
“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish” (Romans 1:20-22)

Sure, it's so "obvious" that nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, either logically or empirically, that it's true.

This remark makes no sense, so I won't address it.

It's really very simple. When pressed, the vast majority of theists will say "the reason I believe in God is because I have faith". If the existence of God is "obvious", then why do so many who believe in a God have to rely on faith?

 

[painted wolf]

Let's not forget the quaint concept that mathematical models are somehow pure guesswork.

That unreliable wishy-washy bunk... what good is math anyway? :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Here is yet another model invented to explain evidence against TOE. This should not be news to any of you as the uptake of deleterious mutations and pay offs is well spoken to in evo literature.

Evolution may not produce the best organisms.
Natural Selection May Not Produce The Best Organisms

The only problem here is your failure to understand how nature measures what is best. If you consider that the only purpose of life is to produce more life, then bacteria are by far the best organisms around and definitely not the most complex.

 

[waitasec]

The only problem here is your failure to understand how nature measures what is best. If you consider that the only purpose of life is to produce more life, then bacteria are by far the best organisms around and definitely not the most complex.

i always thought i should be more bacteria like....:sarcastic



"be, all that you can be...."

 

[wilsoncole]

Dude, your post was deleted due to rule infraction...plagiarism! I rest my case.
btw, had you told us sooner, it would have saved us all a lot of time.

On the other hand, I think it served to bring out your nasty side. I did not know about it until this morning.(15th)
There was no rule infraction.
Anyway, in the face of your demonic accusations, why should I tell you anything? You already think you know everything except how to be decent.
You, too, accused me of deleting a post. You were wrong, as usual.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

The biblical Yeshua is not the thread topic so I don't understand your point.

Do you really believe that Behe is the thread topic? Now - do you understand my point?

Your post is dealing with "complexity" and Behe has been using this argument for a while now. Most creationist touting "complexity equals design" get their info from Behe. Your own Lonnig quotes Behe extensively so I think I'm on topic when bringing his name up.

You should be responding to the things I say and not try to put words in my mouth.
I will say it again:

What causes complexity? What purpose does complexity serve?
Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

Please note: I never said "complexity equals design." You haven't done your homework. Much of what is known about complexity, especially with regards to the cell has been known for quite a while.
Here's what someone else said about complexity and purpose:
"3 - Shape.

Cells come in a variety of shapes, but each one is structured just the right way to accomplish its designated purpose. Cells may be shaped like coils, cubes, boxes, snowflakes, rods, saucers, or blobs of jelly.......
4 - Specialized cells.

It would not accomplish much to merely dump a trillion look-alike cells into your body. Most cells are specialized. You have nerve cells, bone cells, blood cells, muscle cells, and more beside. There are specialized tissue cells in each of your organs: your liver, kidneys, spleen, pancreas, pituitary, and on and on.
5 - Living.

Each cell is living and has the basic life functions.

That is, it breathes, exhales, takes in food, emits waste, grows, and reproduces. All this is in each cell.
6 - Complexity.

A closer look at a typical cell reveals a thin covering called a membrane, , through which oxygen, carbon dioxide, liquid, nutriments, and other substances can pass. Inside the membrane is a jelly-like fluid, called protoplasm. Within this fluid, to our astonishment, we find a whole host of small objects with various shapes. Not one of them is useless; everything has a special purpose. Without all of them, the cell would cease to exist."
This information is not from Behe. I do not know who the writer is but I got it from here:
Chapter 11 CELLULAR EVOLUTION

Are you willing to dispute the statements above? Where is this guy going wrong?
Now - take another look at my statements:

What causes complexity? What purpose does complexity serve?
Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

I get no info from Behe. I have read nothing that he wrote. I have read a few clips of what others said about his ideas, so I do not appreciate you crowing about victories over Behe to me.

No one is ducking anything. I answered it. It's been answered in a few threads already. The key word in your statement is ("IF"). You have not shown "complexity of anything to have been designed".

That's only because I did not say that. What, exactly, are you quoting?

You come to the conclusion that because it appears complex it must have been designed.

Now you can show me why that conclusion is wrong. If you start out with "Just because," you have already lost. You would be opposing but not refuting.

Behe said the (Bacterial Flagellum) was complex so it must have been designed. He goes further to state that if you remove a component from a complex system that the system will no longer function. This is incorrect and in fact you can remove a bunch of components from the Flagellum and it will still function (see Type three secretion system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Additionally the individual components themselves serve a separate function in other cells.

If I haven't told you I'm telling you now: I do not give 3 hoots what Behe said.
Jesus said:
“Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)
Now you can show how you know he didn't do it.

So this notion of yours that complexity lends itself to purpose then design is obvious....in bunk.

Does complexity lend itself to purpose? When I first took an automobile engine apart, it was quite simple. I studied and understood each component and its uses. Now I can't handle it. It is much too complex for me now. Why has it become that way? Is there a purpose to each and every extra component that has been added over the years? The engine would probably run without many of them, but that does not lessen their complexity. Now you're gonna tell me that the car is not designed to operate with those parts and to run on a certain type of fuel?
Read about the cell in the website mentioned above and then show me why each complicated part has no purpose.

While there are cells that are complex, depending on what you're referring to, we seem to know a lot about them as well as their function. But wile there are complex cells there are cells that aren't as complex as others such as (Prokaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

What does that prove? Are you saying that those fewer parts have no purpose? How did the complex ones get that way?
There are no simple living cells.
From the website mentioned above:
"A living creature is not merely a bunch of parts, it is also organization, purposive design, and intelligence at work.

"[The instructions within the DNA of a single cell] if written out would fill a thousand 600-page books. Each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules. . Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads' linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the [cell] nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter." *Rick Gore, "The Awesome Worlds within a Cell" in National Geographic, September 1976, pp. 357-358, 360."

Well, we're not debating Behe. We're debating you

No! You're debating Behe. You keep telling me what he said and how he was refuted.

and you seem to not understand biology very well. Ken Miller has debated Behe. Both being biologist and on equal footing debated each other and Miller crushed him on the "complexity" argument.

Not everyone saw it that way.
So how does that help your case? Since you keep introducing him into these discussions, I am going to start looking into Behe and I will smother you with his ideas. Is that what you want?
Here's a start:
" Awake! 9/06 pp. 11-12 An Interview With a Biochemist

PROFESSOR BEHE: "Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications—that it seems to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many people nervous. However, I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications.""
This was not written by Behe but was taken from AWAKE! 9/06 pp. 11,12 following an interview.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by camanintx
But purpose does not require design.

Please explain.

As Painted Wolf pointed out, just because a rock makes a perfectly good door stop doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose. Nature is full of examples of objects being re-purposed to perform other functions.

Where's your explanation? You're ducking again.
"Re-purposed?" "Other functions?" in nature? By whom?
Any refutation that begins with "Just because" is already a failed argument because it lacks a definite point.
And if that same rock was whittled down to an arrowhead, what would its purpose become and would you still consider it a suitable doorstop?

You do believe that an omniscient God created the entire universe as we know it, don't you?

No! The earth is not at all like he made it. It has been systematically ruined with concerted attempts to ruin other nearby planets.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

There was no rule infraction.

This is getting more and more interesting. There was no rule infraction, but the mods deleted your post? Why, pray tell?

 

[tumbleweed41]

There was no rule infraction.

Spoiler: Guess what?

Plagiarism is a rule infraction, thus the deletion of your post.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
:foot:

 

[Krok]

Krok- You've gotten to work in the Karoo? I am so jealous!

Do you know any good resources showing the fauna of the Karoo in any detail? I've been wanting to do reconstructions of the critters, but fining good images and info to work from can be a headache.
wa:do

Hi Painted Wolf.

Sorry this took me a few days, but the day-job occupies way too much of my time for my liking. Unfortunately my bank manager is a really strict boss and someone has to do some work to be able to repay my bond. Unfortunately that someone is me!

I&#8217;m a geologist and not paleontologist, with the result that I&#8217;m not too familiar with those fauna, although I&#8217;ve stumbled across a few of those critters while doing exploration. (If I were a creationist I would have pretented to be an expert in Paleontology too, but as I'm not a creationist I find it very difficult to lie). :angel2:

The best people to contact for references are probably persons doing research at the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontology at the University of the Witwatersrand. They are very helpful. The Institute publishes its own journal, Palaeontologia africana. It was originally established for papers arising from research carried out in the Institute, or work based on study of specimens from the Institute's collections, but has since diversified into also publishing papers from any researcher working on paleontology.

Link: http://web.wits.ac.za/Academic/Science/GeoSciences/BPI/

 

[painted wolf]

Hi Painted Wolf.

Sorry this took me a few days, but the day-job occupies way too much of my time for my liking. Unfortunately my bank manager is a really strict boss and someone has to do some work to be able to repay my bond. Unfortunately that someone is me!

LoL... I understand, I've been there myself.

I’m a geologist and not paleontologist, with the result that I’m not too familiar with those fauna, although I’ve stumbled across a few of those critters while doing exploration. (If I were a creationist I would have pretented to be an expert in Paleontology too, but as I'm not a creationist I find it very difficult to lie). :angel2:

I live in an area where fossils are next to impossible to find, having been stripped to the bedrock by glaciers.
So naturally I'm going to be excited for anyone who lives in places known for plentiful fossil bearing strata.

The best people to contact for references are probably persons doing research at the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontology at the University of the Witwatersrand. They are very helpful.

The Institute publishes its own journal, Palaeontologia africana. It was originally established for papers arising from research carried out in the Institute, or work based on study of specimens from the Institute's collections, but has since diversified into also publishing papers from any researcher working on paleontology.

Link: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Home

Thanks for the link. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Please explain.

A tree that falls across a stream may serve the purpose of damming the stream, but that doesn't mean it was designed to be a dam, does it? Likewise, the Mot protein complex in flagellum may serve the purpose of a motor, but that doesn't mean it was designed as one.

No! The earth is not at all like he made it. It has been systematically ruined with concerted attempts to ruin other nearby planets.

So you don't believe God was omniscient?

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
I asked you for a quote from me claiming that everything is designed. You have failed to provide one, so your charge is a lie.

this is what i said..

Originally Posted by waitasec View Post
according to you a tornado was designed...
the destruction is the purpose....

YOU FAILED TO SHOW ME ANY QUOTE WHERE I CLAIMED THAT EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED!

do you deny saying this?
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post

1. No other book gives us a rational view of the origin of all things, including mankind, and of the Creator&#8217;s purpose toward the earth and man. (Gen., chap.&#12288;1; Isa. 45:18)

No! But if you had bothered to check the cited biblical passages, you would not be making the mistake that you are now.
According the Genesis chapter 1, particularly verse 28, God's purpose toward man and is the earth is thus stated:
&#8220;Further, God blessed them and God said to them:
&#8220;Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.&#8221;&#8221; (Genesis 1:28)
They were to multiply and they and their descendants were to be caretakers of earth, in harmony with His stated laws.
The next cited scripture says:
&#8220;For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: &#8220;I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.. . .&#8221; (Isaiah 45:18)
This is God's purpose for the earth - to be mankind's home.
Where do you dredge up "everything is designed" in that purpose?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
Keep in mind: PURPOSE!
What causes complexity? What purpose does complexity serve?
Can purpose be detected and explained in co-ordinated relationships?
Science lends itself to such extended investigations. Although drawing wrong conclusions, Neo-Darwinism has done so to a very great degree, even including industrial melanism.
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

There is nothing in this post that says "everything is designed!"
So stop lying by misquoting me.
Besides......
Wickedness is rampant in the earth. You actually think God designed that? WMDs and all that?
His stated intention is to remove all wickedness and wicked persons from the earth.
&#8220;For the wicked themselves will perish, And the enemies of Jehovah will be like the preciousness of pastures; They must come to their end. In smoke they must come to their end.&#8221;
&#8220;For Jehovah is a lover of justice, And he will not leave his loyal ones. &#1506;To time indefinite they will certainly be guarded; But as for the offspring of the wicked ones, they will indeed be cut off. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.&#8221; (Psalm 37:20,28-29)

You're dredging a dry river and you have come up with nothing.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

So you are saying that God didn't make/design everything?

Do you attribute some other force with creative power?

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

A tree that falls across a stream may serve the purpose of damming the stream, but that doesn't mean it was designed to be a dam, does it?

You, clearly, do not understand what purpose is. It has to do with intention and, therefore, cannot be the work of inanimate objects.
DEFINITION –noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3. determination; resoluteness.
4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.
–verb (used with object)
6. to set as an aim, intention, or goal for oneself.
7. to intend; design.
8. to resolve (to do something): He purposed to change his way of life radically.
–verb (used without object)
9. to have a purpose.

Likewise, the Mot protein complex in flagellum may serve the purpose of a motor, but that doesn't mean it was designed as one.

What does it mean?
"PURPOSE of a motor?" What purpose can a motor possibly have? It is inanimate and cannot have any intention.
The comparison of a fallen tree and the flagellum is idiotic.
Purpose = intention, practical result, determination.
Ask yourself: Why is the flagellum there and what does it do?
If it has a particularly useful function that you can detect, then you have found its purpose and that it was especially designed for that sole purpose.
Now you cannot say that it has no purpose.
Since it could not have formed itself with the intention of serving a useful function, now you have to ask yourself: WHO intended for it to serve that purpose?

No! The earth is not at all like he made it. It has been systematically ruined with concerted attempts to ruin other nearby planets.

So you don't believe God was omniscient?[/quote]
What does that have to do with the ruining of the planet?
Do you know what you are asking me?
What do you think that term means?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

So you are saying that God didn't make/design everything?

Bingo!

Do you attribute some other force with creative power?

wa:do

Depends on what you mean by that term.
People often claim creative power. Scientists, artists, songwriters, entertainers, etc.
Are you saying they are wrong?
“God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:28-31)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[waitasec]

YOU FAILED TO SHOW ME ANY QUOTE WHERE I CLAIMED THAT EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED!

i never said that you claimed everything is designed silly...
you show me where i said that...you however
claimed the universe is designed

you posted a picture of the aftermath of a tornado...did you not?
and now you're dogging my question...by trying to change the subject to a non issue....

are tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes volcanic eruptions designed?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you really believe that Behe is the thread topic? Now - do you understand my point?

Actually the thread topic is about the fossil record.

You should be responding to the things I say and not try to put words in my mouth.
I will say it again:
Please note: I never said "complexity equals design."

Ok but this is what you said.....

If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

Is this not you saying you believe that which is complex has a purpose therefore it must be designed? If not can you clarify the statement then?

You haven't done your homework. Much of what is known about complexity, especially with regards to the cell has been known for quite a while.

Where did I ever disagree that cells (are complex)? I agree that there are cells that are complex. There are cells that are more complex and others that aren't as complex than others. I don't take their complexity and presume they were designed.

Are you willing to dispute the statements above? Where is this guy going wrong?

A lot of things at that creationist website are textbook (high school textbook really). There is other information at the site as well as cleverly slipped in that are purely creationist assumptions.

Now - take another look at my statements:
I get no info from Behe. I have read nothing that he wrote. I have read a few clips of what others said about his ideas, so I do not appreciate you crowing about victories over Behe to me.

When you were touting Lonnig you were in essence asserting Behe's ideas. Lonnig borrowed heavily from Behe's work and assertions. Most ID sites and literature have been influenced by Behe. Case in point is the very site you linked, links to creationevidence.org where info on Behe is presented. This is because they all agree with his hypothesis. You may not be directly quoting Behe but the argument that complex cells serve a purpose therefore this denotes design is directly from his books.

That's only because I did not say that. What, exactly, are you quoting?

Actually you did unless you can clarify what you mean by the following.

If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

I'm saying complexity does not denote design regardless of the cells function.

Now you can show me why that conclusion is wrong. If you start out with "Just because," you have already lost. You would be opposing but not refuting.

You haven't shown that complexity means it's obviously designed. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Does complexity lend itself to purpose?

No.

When I first took an automobile engine apart, it was quite simple. I studied and understood each component and its uses. Now I can't handle it. It is much too complex for me now. Why has it become that way? Is there a purpose to each and every extra component that has been added over the years? The engine would probably run without many of them, but that does not lessen their complexity. Now you're gonna tell me that the car is not designed to operate with those parts and to run on a certain type of fuel?

So now you're comparing biological systems to non-biological systems and because you can't understand the complexity you then deem the system as being designed. This is what I've been saying you have have been doing all along. We know you car was designed because we can go to the source. Most parts of a car are labeled with name(s) of the designers.....So how can we test your hypothesis that cells are designed and have a designer?

Read about the cell in the website mentioned above and then show me why each complicated part has no purpose.

Right, so what purpose does a cancer cell have in biological organisms and why did your designer place these cells in humans as well as other animals?

No! You're debating Behe. You keep telling me what he said and how he was refuted.

I'm illustrating that you presume design in what man has termed and described "complex".....You have no way to validate the existence of a designer let alone any evidence that complex cells are designed.

 

[painted wolf]

Bingo!

So other forces have the same creative power as god?

Depends on what you mean by that term.
People often claim creative power. Scientists, artists, songwriters, entertainers, etc.
Are you saying they are wrong?
“God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:28-31)

now who's being silly?

How do you tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not designed?

wa:do