Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

It's interesting before the discovery of Muller cells time after time I read how our eyes were a bad design because it was wired backwards and how this is evidence of evolution. Now we know different still doesn't cost evolution anything. I didn't remember Miller exact quote but he still try to use damage control from another thing Darwinist got wrong. It's makes no difference what we discovery people like Miller will try to spin it to make it fit Darwinism.

Amazing how we can repeatedly prove ourselves wrong and refine our theories, giving publicly available data and repeatable methods and still be accused of "damage control" and "spin" by people who have a single story they want to stick to, ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit.


Creationism is bunk. Just man up and take it. Ken Miller did, and he still goes to the same kind of building to speak to the same kind of invisible friend as you.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Amazing how we can repeatedly prove ourselves wrong and refine our theories, giving publicly available data and repeatable methods and still be accused of "damage control" and "spin" by people who have a single story they want to stick to, ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit.

no matter how many failed prediction evolution is always assume to be true.

Creationism is bunk. Just man up and take it. Ken Miller did, and he still goes to the same kind of building to speak to the same kind of invisible friend as you.

I don't believe in Darwin's God.

 

[niky]

Sorry... I missed the part where Evolution itself predicts anything.

Scientists may make predictions based on evidence provided. If the evidence or model is incomplete, the predictions can be wrong.

Just because a criminal case can be reopened and decisions can be overturned due to new evidence doesn't make Forensics a fraud, now, does it? It simply means that our prior evidence was incomplete.

-

Don't believe in Darwin's God? No issue, neither did Darwin.

 

[Famine]

no matter how many failed prediction evolution is always assume to be true.

I see the confusion now. You're mistaking Creationism - where this happened what evidence LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU - for evolutionary theory - which is the only theory that explains all the evidence in the field gathered over the entirety of time because it's made out of this evidence...

It's easy to make this mistake. After all, evolutionary theory is built by a community of people with nothing to hide and nothing to gain trying their hardest to prove themselves wrong over centuries and, when they succeed, modifying the theory so that the new version covers all the previous data and the new data. It's so easy to mix it up with an immutable statement believed to be correct with significant interest invested in it being correct, based on a single, archaic source despite centuries of contradictory data that is ignored on the basis of being put there to "test faith".


No wait, not that. The other thing. It's bafflingly blinkered and requires exactly the lack of understanding and the misrepresentation of data and words you've demonstrated in this thread just in the last 48 hours.

Creationism is bunk.

 

[Luminis]

The only issue I have with evolution is all of it's fail predictions. Homology is suppose to be evidence of common descent as evolution,( unlike God they say) can only modify what already exists.Yet genetics doesn't always match these predictions. They have found many examples of homology structures using different genes and similar genes make up total different features. Even the fact there is more than one genetic code doesn't cause evolutionist to doubt their faith in the Darwin's tree.

This is mindboggling, really... I mean, Famine covered all of that better than I ever could, but...

Did it ever occur to you that the theory of evolution doesn't try to predict anything at all? All it does is telling us how what we're seeing today came to be. It tries to explain why I am different from a chimp, not even what those specific differences are.

 

[PAPPACLART]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qBZYfgIOG4

This is a good debate, and the strongest I have seen in favour of the God/Creationist argument.

I am firmly an evolutionist and am very interested in this subject.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Here's a video of Dawkins interviewing Nesse who continues to use the D-word. Design,design & more design. It's like one part of his brain is shouting design while the other is trying to resist. Even when he tries to explain why is not design it says it's because "how badly designed they are". He use the example of our arms are badly designed because of the impact of skateboarding. He may have a point our bodies may not be design with skateboarding in mind.

Later He continues to use the d-word then replied "I'm using the word design over and over again. I can see why other people do, you know. It's very hard to find another word to refer to these mechanisms that work so well." .
Not only are these bad designs are still design, they work so well to be bad designs.

 

[BobK]

Err, what's your point? Is your position really so weak that you have to pick at nits like that?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Err, what's your point? Is your position really so weak that you have to pick at nits like that?

The point is "Is their position really so weak that they have to nit pick like that?"

 

[Famine]

The point is "Is their position really so weak that they have to nit pick like that?"

Nope. The point is you're - shock of shocks - taking a little bit of a quote from someone and, for some reason, pretending it proves evolutionary theory wrong somehow.

Richard Dawkins uttering the word "design" in a discussion about how stupid "Intelligent Design" is - by pointing out that if we were designed intelligently, why's the design so heavily flawed - does not invalidate evolutionary theory.


Really, you're now at the level of an 8 year old. "A-ha! You said design! That means you believe in Creationism!".

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Their arguments are flawed. For example something design has to have a blue print. My grandpa never use a blueprint in his life and he designed and build a lot of things. You can even make a home-made motor, magnets,etc. without a blueprint. Also all designs have their limitations so finding a limitation of a design doesn't make the design an illusion.

 

[Famine]

Their arguments are flawed. For example something design has a blue print. My grandpa never use a blueprint in his life and he designed a lot of things. You can even make a home-made motor with a blueprint. Also all designs have their limitations so find a limitation of a design doesn't make the design an illusion.

And we're back to barely-coherent gibberish.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

And we're back to barely-coherent gibberish.

Right. You seems to avoid the points I made.

 

[Famine]

You didn't make any. In fact nothing you posted made any sense - not in the context of this discussion and not in any context with which I'm familiar.

Since your previous "point" was that Dawkins said "design" once and that means evolutionary theory is wrong, I'm kinda glad that last post was nonsense.

 

[wfooshee]

It's makes no difference what we discovery people like Miller will try to spin it to make it fit Darwinism.

This may be a clue to his, um... misunderstanding.

This "spin" is how creationists present their "proofs," so he thinks that's what scientists do, too. After all, it's the only way of thinking he's been taught.

I bet he just loved the banana design video.....

 

[homeforsummer]

He use the example of our arms are badly designed because of the impact of skateboarding. He may have a point our bodies may not be design with skateboarding in mind.

Our bodies aren't designed for anything. Our bodies are the way they are thanks to millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations being better adapted to their environments through natural selection.

Even then, our bodies will never evolve to become better at skateboarding, as skateboarding offers no evolutionary benefit. People who skateboard aren't likely to live longer (at least, no more so than those who do any other regularly healthy exercise... and probably less so than those who do exercises that are less likely to result in broken bones), they aren't likely to be more immune to diseases, nor does skateboarding help us improve our diets, so no aspect of skateboarders will become written into our genetic code.

Our bodies weren't even designed to hunt, nor designed to see in colour. They're simply characteristics that helped our genetic predecessors out-compete their way through time - as skills learned, or as mutations that worked to our advantage.

Later He continues to use the d-word then replied "I'm using the word design over and over again. I can see why other people do, you know. It's very hard to find another word to refer to these mechanisms that work so well." .

And Dawkins knows - like any of us with an ounce of sense - that these mechanisms work so well because they've had millions of years to develop into something that works well. "Design" is simply a figure of speech - he's not using it literally.

Not only are these bad designs are still design, they work so well to be bad designs.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Our bodies aren't designed for anything. Our bodies are the way they are thanks to millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations being better adapted to their environments through natural selection.

I know about evolutionist story telling and how NS suppose of some how design everything we see. NS sounds a lot like a nature god.

Even then, our bodies will never evolve to become better at skateboarding, as skateboarding offers no evolutionary benefit. People who skateboard aren't likely to live longer (at least, no more so than those who do any other regularly healthy exercise... and probably less so than those who do exercises that are less likely to result in broken bones), they aren't likely to be more immune to diseases, nor does skateboarding help us improve our diets, so no aspect of skateboarders will become written into our genetic code.

OK. I would go farther and say out bodies will never to evolve to be better at anything.

Our bodies weren't even designed to hunt, nor designed to see in colour. They're simply characteristics that helped our genetic predecessors out-compete their way through time - as skills learned, or as mutations that worked to our advantage.

Neo-Darwinism has been falsified for decades when scientist learned we inherit more than just our DNA from our parents.

And Dawkins knows - like any of us with an ounce of sense - that these mechanisms work so well because they've had millions of years to develop into something that works well. "Design" is simply a figure of speech - he's not using it literally.

I disagree with this dogma. Dawkins doesn't make a good case why design in living systems is an illusion. Again all designs have limitations so point out limitation of a design is not evdeince it's not designed. If Dawkins is so wrong about design then it very possible he wrong about evolution.

 

[Famine]

I know about evolutionist story telling and how NS suppose of some how design everything we see.

This is purest gibberish.

OK. I would go farther and say out bodies will never to evolve to be better at anything.

They already have.

Neo-Darwinism has been falsified for decades when scientist learned we inherit more than just our DNA from our parents.

Uhhh... what?

I disagree with this dogma. Dawkins doesn't make a good case why design in living systems is an illusion.

Every single piece of data uncovered ever points away from "design in living systems". No piece of data uncovered ever points towards it.

This is the case for why it is an illusion.

 

[homeforsummer]

I know about evolutionist story telling and how NS suppose of some how design everything we see. NS sounds a lot like a nature god.

There is no evolutionist "story". Only evidence.

OK. I would go farther and say out bodies will never to evolve to be better at anything.

That's because you don't seem to understand evolution. I'd lay a bet your idea of evolution is us sprouting wings at some stage or developing stronger thumbs to become better at using mobile phones.

Neo-Darwinism has been falsified for decades when scientist learned we inherit more than just our DNA from our parents.

...And I'd lay another bet you can't find a shred of relevant evidence to support this claim.

I disagree with this dogma. Dawkins doesn't make a good case why design in living systems is an illusion. Again all designs have limitations so point out limitation of a design is not evdeince it's not designed. If Dawkins is so wrong about design then it very possible he wrong about evolution.

I'll say again: He was using "design" as a figure of speech. When he mentions is that isn't some kind of subconscious stutter that proves he actually thinks we're designed, he's just using the term to refer to something that does something.

We weren't "designed" with opposable thumbs for example, we simply inherited them from previous generations who survived thanks to their ability to hold things as tools or climb trees to escape from enemies.

 

[DK]

An easy example of evolution that I can think of is the rapid evolution of various micro-organisms to the point where medicines designed to kill them off no longer work on them.

 

[Luminis]

An easy example of evolution that I can think of is the rapid evolution of various micro-organisms to the point where medicines designed to kill them off no longer work on them.

Precisely. And this happens almost every single year

 

[dylansan]

ZoomZoom, before you continue, please look over your posts before you actually post them. You're sentences have so many mistakes that many of them have no meaning at all. You can't communicate your point if you can't communicate in general.

 

[GTP_Ingram]

One of my favourite arguments against Intelligent Design:


As I have had this point presented to me so simply yet so eloquently, in order to give Creationism a fair trial I am fascinated to hear what Zoom!Zoom! has to say in response.

 

[dylansan]

Fixed the video for you (just use the code after the ?v= and before any &)

 

[GTP_Ingram]

Cheers, it seemed to work for me anyway. Ah well, its a decent argument, I'm sure making it twice can't hurt

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

One of my favourite arguments against Intelligent Design:


As I have had this point presented to me so simply yet so eloquently, in order to give Creationism a fair trial I am fascinated to hear what Zoom!Zoom! has to say in response.

This seems to be an argument from ignorance. Since they don't know the purpose laryngeal nerves route yet then it must be junk or mistake. Dawkins' claim that it's a mistake is an assumption just like "junk DNA" claim. Some of the so called "junk DNA" have been found to used in development of embryos. Scientist have learned that nerves plays an very important part in embryo development even before the nerve's ends are completed.

added: Even if RLN has no purpose I fail to see how this helps NS. NS suppose to have the ability to transforms a fish into land creatures (like a giraffe) and back to a sea creature (whale) but it can't even reroute a simple nerve.

 

[Keef]

Argument from ignorance? At the end of the video it explains how what was once a very simple routing in fish (all evidence so far suggests that the first complex organisms lived in the sea) became obtuse as animals became amphibious and eventually grew long necks to reach the ground or trees. The progression is childishly logical as evolution often is.. By itself it is a poor design but when you judge it based on where it evolved from it seems completely logical.

 

[Scaff]

This seems to be an argument from ignorance.

Why?

Since they don't know the purpose laryngeal nerves route yet then it must be junk or mistake.

Please be so kind as to inform us of why you believe the route has been designed in this manner.

Dawkins' claim that it's a mistake is an assumption just like "junk DNA" claim. Some of the so called "junk DNA" have been found to used in development of embryos. Scientist have learned that nerves plays an very important part in embryo development even before the nerve's ends are completed.

He says that if you were to design the route of the RLN from scratch you would not make the mistake of routing it in such a seemingly convoluted manner. You seem to be suggesting that the route has a design behind it, in which case please explain what it is.

added: Even if RLN has no purpose I fail to see how this helps NS.

Who said the RLN has no purpose? Did you not actually watch the clip which quite clearly explains just how important it is.

NS suppose to have the ability to transforms a fish into land creatures (like a giraffe) and back to a sea creature (whale) but it can't even reroute a simple nerve.

Transform?

Yep they just pop from one state to another at will, its just like Autobots.

Its quite clear why evolution would simply continue to grow a nerve in length rather than have to sever one end and then attempt to re-attach it, that was once again quite clearly explained.

Now please let us all know why you think it was designed in this manner?

 

[Luminis]

Now please let us all know why you think it was designed in this manner?

To test 'our faith', obviously

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Now please let us all know why you think it was designed in this manner?

If you watch carefully somewhere around 2 minute mark you can see nerves branching off to the esophagus. Larynx seems to be only it's final destination not it's only destination.