Intelligent design, The Big Bang Theory, and how the argument doesn't matter anyway.

reply to post by addygrace

I left it out because I supplied a link, and it's against the rules to quote too much off-site content.

Two five-line quotes that the user is providing their own commentary on is hardly against T&C. Try again.

Intentionally? This always happens from dogmatic atheists. They just attack the person.

Hardly a personal attack - I said "intentionally or unintentionally". You seem to feel guilty about it.

In a court of law? Wow. Is this serious? If it is, I have to ask, Is the judge the Peer Review we should be looking for in this matter.

I don't think you understand what happens in a court. The debunking was done by Dr. Kenneth Miller, not the judge, as part of the evidence presented in the Kitzmiller case. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no creationist has ever presented a case of "irreducible complexity" for peer-review. Can you link an example of where one has? Every case of an "unevolvable structure" that has been presented to date, such as the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade, has been shown to be reducible.

And now for some quote-mining! It's fun taking things out of context when it'll prove your point...

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.

Here's the full quote, in context…

" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)

Gould was arguing against gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium. He's not arguing against evolution, he's proposing a model that, in his mind, better fit the data.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.

Here's the full quote, in context…

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

Again, not an argument against evolution or even against transitional species, but an argument for punctuated equilibrium in favor of gradualism. And notice he doesn't say that there are no transitional fossils, just few of them. He actually goes on from here to ask:

If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species?

And then answers that question shortly after:

But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
And on to your last quote-mine...

Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14

Here's the full quote, in context…

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.

I'll just repeat the last line to cut to the chase of what Gould was saying here: "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Tell you what, I'll ignore the intellectual dishonesty you've shown here by quote mining, and I'll take it a step further by doing a thought experiment. Let's pretend that we simply have no fossil record that conclusions can be drawn on. Would the theory of evolution cease to be? Hardly. There is still enough genetic evidence supporting the theory of evolution that fossil evidence isn't even needed.

Are you serious? Common Ancestry explains, genes and fuctional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms? How so? I was under the impression that common ancestry says genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.

And common ancestry states that all currently living organisms are related through the LUCA. In rebuttal, why would a designer use extraneous parts that appear as atavistic or vestigial in species that don't appear to need them? It's easily accounted for by the theory of evolution, but when you try to invoke a guiding intelligence it seems like an example of stupid design, not intelligent design.

It says functionless "junk" DNA. Many types of non-coding DNA sequences do have known biological functions.

Junk DNA was a misnomer previously applied to non-coding DNA. It's like saying you're going to Ceylon. Ceylon no longer exists, but people still know where you're going. Or is your author redefining junk DNA on the fly?

Come to think of it, this isn't even really a prediction of creationism v2.0. This is a post hoc rationalization. If you can show me where the creationists claimed that so called "junk DNA" would eventually be found to have a purpose before it was shown to have a purpose, then it could accurately be called a prediction.

You do realize you just quoted the rest of the evidence, right?

You do realize that you don't seem to know the difference between "predictions" and "evidence", right?

Where did I say or infer, "it's too pretty to not have been created"? This is such a copout. "MAJOR complexity, that performs a specific function", isn't inferring something to be pretty or , "look this is so cool God made it". It's simply stating; A random chance complexity performing a specific function acted upon by a specific condition, is not a logical explanation. Specific functioning complexity has never been observed to be random, so why would I conclude that it was random, unless I'm just trying to deny it was designed for dogmatic reasons.?

You just said it again. Here, I'll swap out the word "pretty" so you can understand: "it's too complex not to have been created". Arguments from irreducible complexity have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. It boils down to an argument from personal incredulity.

A common tactic for people who believe the Theory of Evolutiont to be a fact, is to claim it's so set in stone it can't be refuted. It's the ultimate truth. Yet they don't realize is, they are putting it on the same level as a Dogma.

Facts with 150 years of supporting evidence are hardly dogma.

This is a very odd statement for the National Academy of Science to make, because there are many scientists who question whether descent with modification occurred.

Go look up Project Steve: there are fewer scientists who would sign the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution statement than there are scientists named Steve who support evolution. That's the opposite of "many".

And why would the USNAS make such a statement? It wouldn't possibly be because a bunch of fundies take such personal offense to a scientific theory, one that is on par with the theory of gravity, germ theory, circuit theory, heliocentric theory, etc., that they repeatedly try to strip it from science education? It wouldn't possibly be because a recent poll by the AAAS showed that most Americans believe that when the word "theory" is applied to an area of science, it's a perjorative? No... couldn't possibly be that.

Since you seem so fond of quotes, here's one from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

(Emphasis added)

In all reality, why would anybody, especially a scientist, stop questioning any theory unless we've learned all we can learn/ Stating it as fact, discourages testing.

Ignorance of how science works on display here. Do you not understand that we use facts to develop further hypotheses to be tested? Facts don't stop or discourage testing, facts can be built upon to continue testing new hypotheses.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by addygrace

 

Two five-line quotes that the user is providing their own commentary on is hardly against T&C. Try again.
Hardly a personal attack - I said "intentionally or unintentionally". You seem to feel guilty about it..

I provided a link and a quote. You claim you don't know if I was intentionally leaving out the predictions made by the quoted source, which I linked. How could that be when I linked to it? It is against the rules to quote too much from one source. Regardless, of the rules I did link to it. You seem to imply I'm trying to hide the rest of it. With google and the way the internet is set up, who would quote part of a source, hoping the rest will stay hidden? The incredible part of all this is, you easily found the information that I wanted you to find because I linked to it, and you claim you don't know if I was hiding it or not. You then say, " I said "intentionally or unintentionally".", as if this means you weren't implying I did it on purpose.
This happens so much on here, it makes small points turn into paragraphs of words defending against an accusation that is clearly unsubstantiated, and has nothing to do with the thread. Just to clarify, linking to something is not hiding it, and quoting too much of one source is against the rules. You know what, this whole forum has become a huge design bashing forum for atheists to personally attack people who don't have the same world view as them. We can't even have a discussion without it becoming an interrogation of somebody's moral code. I'm glad you decided to reply to my post, but I'm going to step out on this one. You win, I lose.

reply to post by addygrace


Good job ignoring 99% of iterationzero's points!

He demolished:

The 'irreducible complexity' issue, the quote-mining of Gould, your misunderstanding of common ancestry, your misuse of terms, your mislabeling of evolution as dogma, your hilarious overstatement of dissent from evolution amongst scientists etc...

And you just went off about the statement which didn't lay any blame about whether or not you intentionally left out something.

I'm sorry, but I have a question for you: Where is a single piece of evidence of something that could not have evolved?

Intelligent design has been thoroughly eviscerated

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace

 

Good job ignoring 99% of iterationzero's points!

He demolished:

The 'irreducible complexity' issue, the quote-mining of Gould, your misunderstanding of common ancestry, your misuse of terms, your mislabeling of evolution as dogma, your hilarious overstatement of dissent from evolution amongst scientists etc...

And you just went off about the statement which didn't lay any blame about whether or not you intentionally left out something.

I'm sorry, but I have a question for you: Where is a single piece of evidence of something that could not have evolved?

Intelligent design has been thoroughly eviscerated

Did you notice I said, "You win, I lose.", and "I'm stepping out on this one."? He clearly didn't believe my answer, about it being against the rules.Link
What do you want me to do, spend an hour on a reply, only to have my integrity questioned by a poster who clearly knew I wasn't hiding a quote, he thought should have been in my post?

When somebody says, you are lying about the rules, and I don't know if you tried to hide part of an article that was linked, it means they are laying blame about your intentions.

Even my six year-old knows, "Are you feeling guilty?", is an attack your integrity.

It's no big deal, the poster said what they wanted to say about evolution, I decided I'm not going to waste time on honestly discussing a topic with them, if they can't even believe I'm telling the truth. It would make no sense.

reply to post by addygrace


You may be misinterpreting the rules just a bit. You can post relevant portions of the link provided, it's just more a matter of not always providing block text.

And frankly, even your six year old should realize that storming off because of what someone else says while abandoning the discussion is a bit childish.

Though I guess it's really because you can't have an honest discussion and still defend creationism. Why? Well, quote mining and lying about science aren't exactly honest.

Originally posted by addygrace
I provided a link and a quote. You claim you don't know if I was intentionally leaving out the predictions made by the quoted source, which I linked. How could that be when I linked to it?

I also forwarded the possibility, by saying "unintentionally", that you had simply overlooked the predictions made by the material you quoted. There's a big difference between linking something and calling direct attention to it.

It is against the rules to quote too much from one source.

The link to the T&C policy that you provided in your previous post has to do with quoting other posts, not external material. But I think we can apply the same common sense rules to this situation:

Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point!

If you don't think that predictions made by your "facts" are salient, then we either have a very different definition of salient or you have a very poor grasp of the importance of the predictive ability of scientific models.

Regardless, of the rules I did link to it. You seem to imply I'm trying to hide the rest of it. With google and the way the internet is set up, who would quote part of a source, hoping the rest will stay hidden? The incredible part of all this is, you easily found the information that I wanted you to find because I linked to it, and you claim you don't know if I was hiding it or not. You then say, " I said "intentionally or unintentionally".", as if this means you weren't implying I did it on purpose.

No, I clearly provided for both possibilities and you're taking offense to it. It could have been something you overlooked in your own citation or it could have been in the hope that no one would actually click the link. Just because you infer that someone is directing greater weight to one of the two possibilities doesn't mean they implied it. It just means that you're being defensive. If I had said something like, "I'm sure it was unintentional" with a winky face afterwards, then you could safely say that I was implying something. Believe me, if I had no doubt you did it intentionally, I would have simply said so. Kind of like when I pointed out that you were playing the quote-mining game with Gould.

This happens so much on here, it makes small points turn into paragraphs of words defending against an accusation that is clearly unsubstantiated, and has nothing to do with the thread. Just to clarify, linking to something is not hiding it, and quoting too much of one source is against the rules. You know what, this whole forum has become a huge design bashing forum for atheists to personally attack people who don't have the same world view as them. We can't even have a discussion without it becoming an interrogation of somebody's moral code. I'm glad you decided to reply to my post, but I'm going to step out on this one. You win, I lose.

I know, I know... you were so deeply offended by my "accusation" that you not only took the time to reply, but tried to get your own little jab in about "dogmatic atheists". You've made more of an issue out of your moral code in this exchange than I did and the atheist vs theist attacks are hardly one-sided. Don't play the martyr, it's really unbecoming and, frankly, very dishonest. You should really try and get back on topic with some evidence that refutes my points.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



The same way you will not budge on your POV, I will not budge on mine. What I see you doing is compartmentalizing the whole 'theory' of evolution and you want it to mean whatever you want. The 'theory' of evolution in a nutshell is: something exploded from a spinning dot in no one knows where and all life came from it.
Time, matter, space, bacteria, atoms, protons, neutrons, rocks, water, human and animal flesh, etc.
And the 'magic' ingredient of time does miracles, first millions of years, then billions, and some to come trillions of years.
It is fine to "believe" that religion, but don't try to promote it as fact when there are numerous flaws in the theory.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved

What I see you doing is compartmentalizing the whole 'theory' of evolution and you want it to mean whatever you want.

No, that's what YOU are doing! The theory is very accurately defined. In case you care about the definition:

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

So when you say...

The 'theory' of evolution in a nutshell is: something exploded from a spinning dot in no one knows where and all life came from it.

...all you're doing is showing a lack of knowledge, because CLEARLY, you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is fine to "believe" that religion, but don't try to promote it as fact when there are numerous flaws in the theory.

Oh the irony is strong in this one

The theory of evolution is based on objective evidence...religion clearly isn't. So calling the theory a religion just once again shows that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Do yourself a favour and at least read the wiki page on evolution before making more fals claims

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, wikipedia, not reliable and trustworthy. I can go on there and make a few changes. The theory of evolution is what the textbooks say it is. From childhood, the textbooks begin indoctrinating us with the spinning dot story that explodes and they want us to believe that everything came to be from that.
A monkey is not my uncle, if you choose to believe that, then it is your religious belief because it is a hard forced sell and I won't buy it.
You want to look at it from the present to maybe 1 million years back. I look at the foundation of the theory and it takes a lot of faith to believe that fairytale.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yes, wikipedia, not reliable and trustworthy. I can go on there and make a few changes.

Except Wikipedia is quite reliable when it has external citations...

The theory of evolution is what the textbooks say it is.

Yes, the college level textbooks that actually delve into things like 'alleles' and what they are. The theory of evolution is an explanation of why allele frequency changes over time, which is what evolution is.

From childhood, the textbooks begin indoctrinating us with the spinning dot story that explodes and they want us to believe that everything came to be from that.

That's a Kent Hovind lie. You're taking Kent Hovind's word for it when he actually is quoting something on star formation, which actually involves rotation. The Big Bang theory (which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution) has nothing to do with spinning. At all.

Don't take my word for it. Go to about 1 min 30 seconds into this video and just watch for yourself.

A monkey is not my uncle, if you choose to believe that, then it is your religious belief because it is a hard forced sell and I won't buy it.

Nope, that's not what evolution says at all. A monkey-like creature is your distant ancestor, but not your uncle.

You want to look at it from the present to maybe 1 million years back. I look at the foundation of the theory and it takes a lot of faith to believe that fairytale.

What's so difficult to believe that allele frequency changes over time and that those changes can accumulate over many successive generations to create greater diversity?

Damn double posts, something wrong with my mouse button...

reply to post by creatednotEvolved

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The same way you will not budge on your POV, I will not budge on mine.

I'm actually willing to budge on my position, so long as you provide a good reason.

What I see you doing is compartmentalizing the whole 'theory' of evolution and you want it to mean whatever you want.

Evolution is a theory relating to the diversification of biological organisms over time.

The 'theory' of evolution in a nutshell is: something exploded from a spinning dot in no one knows where and all life came from it.

Nope, that's a Kent Hovind lie. I've already addressed this, see my other reply to your later post. Last I checked, the Big Bang theory had nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with what happens after life forms, not with anything prior to that moment.

Time, matter, space, bacteria, atoms, protons, neutrons, rocks, water, human and animal flesh, etc.

Evolution deals with...bacteria, flesh, and that's it.

And the 'magic' ingredient of time does miracles, first millions of years, then billions, and some to come trillions of years.

Trillions? Nothing is trillions of years old.

It is fine to "believe" that religion, but don't try to promote it as fact when there are numerous flaws in the theory.

Name one.

Do forgive me for not going through the thread in all it's entirety. However I shall try my best to surmise my views here. I suppose the human mind is rather primitive and we do not carry the ability to fully comprehend the existence of an ontological phenomenon such as the universe being that it is considered as the apotheosis of all things in existence. For now, we can merely draw inferences from what little of the universe that we can observe

Unfortunately the big bang theory does not explain how the first particle came into existence and nor does it fully attempt to explain the underlying dynamics for the complexity of the universe and that which tends to galvanize this complexity. Hence although a tenable theory it is still a rather incomplete one.However resorting to a belief in god is an attempt to circumvent the human imagination and if we are to consider it as an idea then it tends to become a reductio ad absurdum.

True knowledge is when you know how ignorant you really are....

reply to post by creatednotEvolved


You should spend more time reading and less time posting if you seriously consider the "spinning dot" part of modern evolutionary theory. You really seem to have no clue about the theory, and it almost seems as if you're getting your "knowledge" from Kent Hovind (who's been debunked a thousand times).

I hope you don't teach that nonsense to your kids, as they'd suffer from a disadvantage their entire life believing in complete and utter nonsense instead of stuff backed up by objective evidence...that is, unless you want to turn them into monks living outside normal society

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Sure, then your ancestor is a monkey, not mine. My ancestors have always been human beings and will still be human being in 1, 10, 100 thousand years etc. And monkeys have always been monkeys and will always be monkeys.
That fairytale requires more faith than creationism. imho.
You attempt to create a spinoff religion to your evolutionary theory, whether you like it or not, the rudimentary evolutionary theory is what it is and what it has been taught to be, an impossible thing to even fathom happening by chance.
The chance of just a cell in your body being formed by chance is 1 in ?(what number goes there) If you can come up with that number, we can talk more about evolution.
Because after that, I would like the number for the probability of the just the earth being in perfect harmony by chance.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Sure, then your ancestor is a monkey, not mine.

No, both of us have ancestors that are monkey-like.

My ancestors have always been human beings and will still be human being in 1, 10, 100 thousand years etc.

Well...no matter how much time passes, your ancestors don't change...

And monkeys have always been monkeys and will always be monkeys.

Monkey is a very broad term...and you're talking about individuals in a species...a monkey will never turn into something else during its lifetime, but the population does and will continue to change over generations.

That fairytale requires more faith than creationism. imho.

Something tells me you're not bothering to address anything I actually told you and just drag out accusations that you can't back up.

What about evolution requires faith?

You attempt to create a spinoff religion to your evolutionary theory,

Nope, not at all. An explanation of how biological systems work has nothing to do with religion. I don't live my life according to evolution, just like I don't live my life according to Boyle's gas law.

whether you like it or not, the rudimentary evolutionary theory is what it is and what it has been taught to be,

Yep...evolution is that thing which you don't understand at all, as evidenced by the fact that you're getting your info from Kent Hovind.

an impossible thing to even fathom happening by chance.

Good thing that natural selection has nothing to do with chance.

The chance of just a cell in your body being formed by chance is 1 in ?(what number goes there) If you can come up with that number, we can talk more about evolution.

Well...that number has absolutely nothing to do with evolution...that's abiogenesis. And a modern cell in a human body would be entirely different from the first organisms...see, your entire ignorance of evolution is just astounding.

Because after that, I would like the number for the probability of the just the earth being in perfect harmony by chance.

The Earth is in perfect harmony? Tell that to the Japanese, Haitians, Sri Lankens, residents of New Orleans, and all the other people whose lives were shattered or taken by natural disasters.

As for probabilities in general...even though you're misapplying them entirely (demonstrating an ignorance of probabilities on top of general science), they don't matter. Just read the first post of this thread I made on probabilities and how they don't matter in the way you're applying them.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Just what I suspected from your thinking, you focus in on certain aspects of the theory and then blindly believe that everything esle just must have happened as it is believed to have happened.
Like 'speciation'. Variety with in a species that looks and behaves differently to those similar to its kind.
Like in Darwin's book when he speaks of the finch. That will never prove that a bird came from a reptile or from anything other than a bird.

Your trying to pass off your belief as a fact, that we have a common ancestor with monkeys is a straw man argument. You are assuming that as fact and you know how the saying goes; assumption is the mother of all
f*ck ups.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved


I don't think you realize how silly you look ignoring the facts...I mean, comon' dude, we live in the 21st century, not the middle ages. The theory of evolution is fully backed up by objective evidence like the fossil record, migratory trends, and DNA records.

It's not as if the scientific community is split on the subject, evolution is generally accepted for the sound theory it is. You on the other hand are showing great ignorance by refusing to accept facts simply because in your mind they go against your religious beliefs. You're fighting a war you can't win, just like the people who believed the earth is flat, or that commets are a sign of god.

reply to post by creatednotEvolved

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Just what I suspected from your thinking, you focus in on certain aspects of the theory and then blindly believe that everything esle just must have happened as it is believed to have happened.

Blindly believe? I'm sorry, I'm more well informed about evolution than most other people. Between genetics, atavisms, vestiges, and the fossil record there is more than

Like 'speciation'. Variety with in a species that looks and behaves differently to those similar to its kind.

And can't reproduce between each other...and what is a 'kind' again?

Like in Darwin's book when he speaks of the finch. That will never prove that a bird came from a reptile or from anything other than a bird.

See? This is what I'm talking about, ignorance. Birds are descended from therapod dinosaurs, not reptiles. Yes, there is a distinction. Furthermore, Darwin's discussion of the finches created a working idea, not the full concept. I don't take evolution on the words of Darwin because it's not a religion. There are 150+ years worth of research to further expand upon the initial ideas and modify them as the evidence provides.

Hell, we didn't get the idea of birds coming from dinosaurs until much later than Darwin...so...yeah...straw men all up in this thread.

Also, when are you going to bother addressing anything I say? Or answering any of my questions?

Your trying to pass off your belief as a fact,

It's not a belief, it is a fact. You've yet to actually show even a single flaw with it even after repeated promptings.

that we have a common ancestor with monkeys is a straw man argument.

No, that is true. We do have a common ancestor with monkeys. Hell, we have a common ancestor with all life on the planet, it just depends on how far back you go. This is verified by genetics. Of course, you never said we had a common ancestor, you never used the words 'common' or 'ancestor' at all. You said that a monkey isn't your uncle, which is a straw man. Nobody is saying that your father or mother had a brother that was a monkey.

You are assuming that as fact

Nope, no assumptions. I'm just assuming that my view of the world should be in line with the evidence.

Now, I'm going to ask for the following again:

One or more flaws in evolutionary theory
A part of evolution that requires faith to accept
And an admission that you took a Kent Hovind point that has been shown to be false and regurgitated it

reply to post by creatednotEvolved


That's a common misconception. Human beings did not evolve from monkeys as it is incorrectly taught in schools but hominids as the term stands....(no, we aren't arguing semantics here). I wonder what argument could you possibly postulate for the existence of a god ?.....I would be most delighted if you could put forth a tenable one.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution and cannot be dismissed easily....Evolution however does not insinuate the existence of a designer as there is nothing to show that a designer exists. It is a weak attempt by creationists to reconcile their altogether fragile existence by adhering to a belief in god. It gives them mental solace by placating their faith in a deity as such. God as an idea is a reductio ad absurdum.