Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Eyes that surely no perfect designer would ever be proud of, eyes that could reasonably only have evolved that way. Nor could human eyes have somehow been able to degenerated to be as they are now since despite their problematical inherent construction (optic nerve, blind spot etc.) they nevertheless do work remarkably well. All of which rather suggests anything but degeneration or decline.

Before I answer...

Question for you Alight....
You are arguing that poor design is evidence against a designer.
So...logically you must this thjnk good design is evidence for a designer?
Or... Are you going to stick to your belief no matter what the evidence shows?

 

[alwight]

Before I answer...

Question for you Alight....
You are arguing that poor design is evidence against a designer.
So...logically you must this thjnk good design is evidence for a designer?
Or... Are you going to stick to your belief no matter what the evidence shows?

If there is any reasonable evidence that any part of life as we know it must have been designed because it could not have evolved then the ToE will have been falsified.

 

[Stuu]

uh..... I wouldn't use Dawkins as a source if I was you. He has a habit of being wrong about almost everything. He often makes statements about things based on a lack of knowledge. I haven't studied the laryngeal nerve in giraffes but I suspect there likely is a design purpose for the length... Similar to how evolutionists once told us our appendix and many other parts were useless.

I'm not using Dawkins as a source. While he is an expert in a field called ethology and a globally recognised authority on evolutionary biology, neither he nor I would ever insist you take his word for anything. The challenge is to apply Occam's Razor to your interpretation of the evidence. That is what usually gives us the highest quality of information.

Here is Dawkins showing you the evidence and explaining it. If you think you can spot a flaw then you are welcome to use evidence to show he is wrong. Otherwise, in science the rather rude expression is put up or shut up.

Warning: the video shows the giraffe dissection. Towards the end it explains how the giraffe got the absurdly long nerve. It is completely explained by evolution by natural selection, and the theory of natural selection predicts you should have this sort of thing happen, and there are many other examples of it including vestigiality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

[Repeat post]

 

[6days]

Before I answer...

Question for you Alight....
You are arguing that poor design is evidence against a designer.
So...logically you must this thjnk good design is evidence for a designer?
Or... Are you going to stick to your belief no matter what the evidence shows?

If there is any reasonable evidence that any part of life as we know it must have been designed because it could not have evolved then the ToE will have been falsified

Hee hee
The question is....
You are arguing that poor design is evidence against a designer.
So...logically you must this thnk good design is evidence for a designer?
Or... Are you going to stick to your belief no matter what the evidence shows?

 

[6days]

uh..... I wouldn't use Dawkins as a source if I was you. He has a habit of being wrong about almost everything. He often makes statements about things based on a lack of knowledge. I haven't studied the laryngeal nerve in giraffes but I suspect there likely is a design purpose for the length... Similar to how evolutionists once told us our appendix and many other parts were useless.

The challenge is to apply Occam's Razor to your interpretation of the evidence. That is what usually gives us the highest quality of information.

OK...let's do that! I agree.

Here is Dawkins showing you the evidence and explaining it. If you think you can spot a flaw then you are welcome to use evidence to show he is wrong. Otherwise, in science the rather rude expression is put up or shut up.

The reason I advised you not to use Dawkins as your source is because he has a history of being incorrect. Dawkins is a wee bit of a dishonest evolutionary evangelist. Unfortunately, Dawkins is more interested in promoting his religious views, and his book sales than he is in science and honesty.

Warning: the video shows the giraffe dissection. Towards the end it explains how the giraffe got the absurdly long nerve.....

Dawkins is like an apprentice electrician. He doesn't understand why the journeyman electrician wired things a certain way. So he assumes that the journeyman is wrong and then starts teaching others before he understands his business.

A few years ago an evolutionist challenged me with the same long nerve in humans, saying this nerve should not loop down into our chest. However I found that Gray’s Anatomy says “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

So Dawkins is mistaken by assuming this "absurdly long nerve services the larynx only. Does he bother to tell you that the nerve also services parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus. Does he bother to tell you that there may be other functions or design purposes that he doesn't I know about? Nope... Dawkins is a snake oil salesman, and he has lots of buyers.

So...back to your comment about Occams Razor... are you willing to accept your advice and go with what the evidence indicates....
"In the beginning God created...."

 

[Jukia]

go with what the evidence indicates....
"In the beginning God created...."

The Bible is not evidence. Unless of course you are satisfied with a cobbled together book oft written by third parties who were not around to see what they wrote about.

So I have this bridge, I can let you have it at a very reasonable price....

 

[alwight]

Hee hee
The question is....
You are arguing that poor design is evidence against a designer.
So...logically you must this thnk good design is evidence for a designer?
Or... Are you going to stick to your belief no matter what the evidence shows?

I don't propose there is any such design, that is your position apparently, but as such I think I can still hypothetically comment on what you believe is the case. All you need do is demonstrate that any deliberate design exists and the ToE falls, is that so tricky?

 

[Stuu]

OK...let's do that! I agree.
The reason I advised you not to use Dawkins as your source is because he has a history of being incorrect. Dawkins is a wee bit of a dishonest evolutionary evangelist. Unfortunately, Dawkins is more interested in promoting his religious views, and his book sales than he is in science and honesty.

As I explained to you, I wasn't using Dawkins as a SOURCE. You do understand the difference, right?

Dawkins is like an apprentice electrician. He doesn't understand why the journeyman electrician wired things a certain way. So he assumes that the journeyman is wrong and then starts teaching others before he understands his business.

A few years ago an evolutionist challenged me with the same long nerve in humans, saying this nerve should not loop down into our chest. However I found that Gray’s Anatomy says “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

So Dawkins is mistaken by assuming this "absurdly long nerve services the larynx only. Does he bother to tell you that the nerve also services parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus. Does he bother to tell you that there may be other functions or design purposes that he doesn't I know about? Nope... Dawkins is a snake oil salesman, and he has lots of buyers.

The 1% of people who don't have this nerve running recurrently don't seem to suffer any lack of enervation of any tissues. That means the extra branching of the nerve isn't necessary, but is opportunistic - natural selection making use of an increasingly absurd situation that wasn't absurd in fish. Those with the non-recurrent version instead have differences in the arrangements of the arteries in the chest, one of those travelling behind the oesophagus.

So much for it being a design, if it isn't essential that it is organised that way. This alternative arrangement, that doesn't enervate those other structures but still requires plumbing and electrics to be intertwined in a particular way, is evidence that there are alternative ways of doing things but natural selection can't go back on a prior commitment to essential processes of embryonic development. In other words, the nerve and arteries have to be tangled, although it doesn't matter much where the tangle happens. If that is your idea of design then I'm glad Dawkins is the apprentice electrician and you're not.

So...back to your comment about Occams Razor... are you willing to accept your advice and go with what the evidence indicates....
"In the beginning God created...."

There is no unambiguous evidence for that assertion at all, whatever a god is and whatever "the beginning" means.

Your new commitment to the slashing that Occam's Razor exacts on creationism prompts me to welcome you to atheism!

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Instead of babbling about all of this nonsense you'd better All get on the bandwagon soon before God goes on the warpath. It won't be that long to polish up on your apologies and good works, the two most important being, "Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as you love yourself." And do not forget to love Jesus and believe in Him as our Messiah and God's Son. Treat each other like you'd like to be treated also. I'm not joking here. The clock is Ticking. Don't give me this, Oh it's been 2,000 years already and nothing's happened. That won't save your soul when it comes down. So quit your bantering and get yourself together.

In God's Name,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Dear All,

Instead of babbling about all of this nonsense you'd better All get on the bandwagon soon before God goes on the warpath. It won't be that long to polish up on your apologies and good works, the two most important being, "Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as you love yourself." And do not forget to love Jesus and believe in Him as our Messiah and God's Son. Treat each other like you'd like to be treated also. I'm not joking here. The clock is Ticking. Don't give me this, Oh it's been 2,000 years already and nothing's happened. That won't save your soul when it comes down. So quit your bantering and get yourself together.

In God's Name,

Michael

I love it when people make threats of violence on behalf of their "awesome" imaginary friends.

Is it a vengeful god like they say? Does it really hate figs that much?

Stuart

 

[6days]

The 1% of people who don't have this nerve running recurrently don't seem to suffer any lack of enervation of any tissues. That means the extra branching of the nerve isn't necessary, but is opportunistic

You are so much like the old evolutionists who said that the appendix served no purpose and might as well be removed. You are so much like the old evolutionists such as Dawkins who said "junk DNA" may as well be tossed away for all the good it does.
Accept many of those old evolutionists now admit their assumptions were wrong. Their assumptions were based on their beliefs and seemed valid -- until science showed those beliefs were wrong.
Your assumptions are wrong too Stu. You are one of the old evolutionists who has a hard time admitting that they don't have complete knowledge.

The obvious interpretation of evidence always always points to the Creator God if the Bible.

 

[Stuu]

You are so much like the old evolutionists who said that the appendix served no purpose and might as well be removed.

Good point. Why did your creator god put such a timebomb in our abdomens?

You are so much like the old evolutionists such as Dawkins who said "junk DNA" may as well be tossed away for all the good it does.

Either give a link to him saying that recently, or withdraw the claim.

Accept many of those old evolutionists now admit their assumptions were wrong. Their assumptions were based on their beliefs and seemed valid -- until science showed those beliefs were wrong. Your assumptions are wrong too Stu. You are one of the old evolutionists who has a hard time admitting that they don't have complete knowledge.

How about you actually engage, and read, and learn. You will find at least one instance in the past day where I have said I don't deal in certainty, that it is a matter of working out how likely various claims are. I have written many times in the past here that I will change my mind if the evidence disproves what I believe, and I will be grateful for the opportunity for new learning. I have never shared my assumptions with you, but I can if you want.

The obvious interpretation of evidence always always points to the Creator God if the Bible.

Hypocrite.

Stuart

 

[noguru]

How about you actually engage, and read, and learn. You will find at least one instance in the past day where I have said I don't deal in certainty, that it is a matter of working out how likely various claims are. I have written many times in the past here that I will change my mind if the evidence disproves what I believe, and I will be grateful for the opportunity for new learning. I have never shared my assumptions with you, but I can if you want.

6days is one of those old YECs who thinks that the inability to be 100% certain means that we should remain in complete confusion about natural explanations. He is employing the same strategy Delmar tried to use by introducing the evidence and research for the initial rapid expansion of the universe. People who seek confusion rather than clarity love to use this strategy. It makes them feel they are being clever, when in reality they are just demonstrating their own confusion.

 

[alwight]

6days is one of those old YECs who thinks that the inability to be 100% certain means that we should remain in complete confusion about natural explanations. He is employing the same strategy Delmar tried to use by introducing the evidence and research for the initial rapid expansion of the universe. People who seek confusion rather than clarity love to use this strategy. It makes them feel they are being clever, when in reality they are just demonstrating their own confusion.

Seems to me that what is important to YECs is to maintain "areas of doubt and uncertainty" at all costs, as a place for their beliefs to dwell in, in their minds at least. What maybe more likely to be true, based simply on rational reasonable evidence and physical reality, are perhaps little more than an inconvenience to their irrational beliefs.:think:

 

[alwight]

Eyes that surely no perfect designer would ever be proud of, eyes that could reasonably only have evolved that way. Nor could human eyes have somehow been able to degenerated to be as they are now since despite their problematical inherent construction (optic nerve, blind spot etc.) they nevertheless do work remarkably well. All of which rather suggests anything but degeneration or decline.

Before I answer...

Question for you Alight....
You are arguing that poor design is evidence against a designer.
So...logically you must this thjnk good design is evidence for a designer?
Or... Are you going to stick to your belief no matter what the evidence shows?

I answered this, what about your promised comment?

 

[6days]

I answered this, what about your promised comment?

You avoided answering, because you realized that you say poor design is evidence against a designer, and good design is evidence of evolution.
Essentially its saying that ToE is unfalsifiable, because no matter what the evidence is, you can make it fit the 'theory'.

 

[6days]

You are so much like the old evolutionists who said that the appendix served no purpose and might as well be removed.

Good point. Why did your creator god put such a timebomb in our abdomens?

Why the Creator God gave us an appendix?? I think we know of a few reasons and more reasons may be discovered yet. Here is one...

Appendix Isnt Useless At All: its a Safe House for Bacteria
DURHAM, NC -- Long denigrated as vestigial or useless, the appendix now appears to have a reason to be -- as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut.

Drawing upon a series of observations and experiments, Duke University Medical Center investigators postulate that the beneficial bacteria in the appendix that aid digestion can ride out a bout of diarrhea that completely evacuates the intestines and emerge afterward to repopulate the gut. Their theory appears online in the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

"While there is no smoking gun, the abundance of circumstantial evidence makes a strong case for the role of the appendix as a place where the good bacteria can live safe and undisturbed until they are needed," said William Parker, PhD, …

You are so much like the old evolutionists such as Dawkins who said "junk DNA" may as well be tossed away for all the good it does.

Either give a link to him saying that recently, or withdraw the claim.

Junk DNA - it's not so useless after all
Junk. Barren. Non-functioning. Dark matter. That’s how scientists had described the 98% of human genome that lies between our 21,000 genes, ever since our DNA was first sequenced about a decade ago. …
But it turns out they were wrong.
……………… comments........
The scientist who is credited with coining the term “‘junk’ DNA” was evolutionist Susumu Ohno. In his paper “So Much ‘Junk’ DNA in Our Genome,” he wrote that the remaining sequences of DNA “are the remains of nature’s experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?”

Later other geneticists like John S. Mattick, professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, refuted that irresponsible dogma by insisting we simply do not know everything and we should research to find out. The man was personally attacked and given every insult possible by people like staunch Evolutionist Larry Moran.
.....
"Junk DNA" is not popularization of context. It was believed to be actual evolutionary vestige that made perfect sense with logic of neo-Darwinism.

2. Then Dawkins called it selfish gene was its it was "useless but harmless passenger."
3. Francis Crick in 1980 published a paper in Nature that said Junk DNA has no function and so "it would be a folly in such cases to obsessively hunt for one."
4. Ford Dolittle in 1980 also published a paper and it reads "search for explanations may prove intellectually sterile and ultimately futile" in talking about junk DNA.
5. In 2004, some "junk DNA" in mice were deleted by Nobrega et al. and these junk "sequences may not be essential."

Throughout 1990's and also into 2000's even my molecular biology textbooks and Biochemistry textbooks have called "junk DNA" as not having any function and as an "evolutionary vestige."

The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.

Scientific evidence proves the evolutionists were wrong...over and over and over when the made evolutionary assumptions about our bodies.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

AMEN!! Where do you learn all of these things? Now I know what I have this appendix for.

In God's Awesomeness,

Michael

 

[alwight]

You avoided answering, because you realized that you say poor design is evidence against a designer, and good design is evidence of evolution.
Essentially its saying that ToE is unfalsifiable, because no matter what the evidence is, you can make it fit the 'theory'.

Nonsense, I simply cannot accept "poor" any more than "perfect" design without falsifying my own position. The point being made is that it is you who supposes a "perfect" designer who apparently creates imperfection, which seems to make your position rather less than likely than it already is.
Sorry but unless you can show any "design" at all then there is no reason for me to accept, even hypothetically, poor design as any kind of argument. But produce reasonable evidence of any "design" at all and I will not only concede but will become a creationist.

There would be many ways to falsify the ToE if indeed it was false, but your problem is that apparently it isn't, not that it is un-falsifiable.