Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Things intelligently designed are easy to detect.

How? By what means do you differentiate between things that are "designed" and things that aren't?

 

[6days]

The challenge remains open: Things look designed, therefore it is reasonable to believe there was a designer.

Yes...of course. Things that appear intelligently designed, usually if not always, are intelligently designed. Things like codes, which contain information always are designed.
Strange how evolutionists hate to admit the logic in Stripes simple statement..."Things look designed, therefore it is reasonable to believe there was a designer."

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes.... It's called evidence.
Its logic that a BMW is better than a Lada because of design.

And it all had to come into existence at the same time, i.e., male and female, biologically complete in every way or it all would have become a 'no go'.

 

[Stripe]

citation please to the article

Darwinists hate a rational discussion over ideas.

Oh Stripey, you are so wrong.

Nope. You attacked the source as if that dealt a fatal blow to the argument. Classical Darwinist nonsense.

It depends on which creationists you're talking to and what day of the week it is (they like to change their stories from day to day).

Nope.

You've been painted a clear and stable picture of the TOL creationist beliefs.

How about you repeat it fairly to remind us all what it is. :up:

As 6days keeps describing, in order to go from a single breeding pair of each "kind" to all its descendant species in just a few thousand years you need new species to arise very rapidly and regularly.

Nope. Species is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific context.

Now how does that happen if evolution never, ever, ever occurs? How do you go from a single pair representing the "cat kind" to leopards, tigers, cheetahs, and all the other species in the family? It can't be via evolution, so it must be via........? :

Adaptation. Creatures show the ability to change in response to their environment.

Then of course there's the pesky little fact that (as I noted) evolution occurs all the time right before our eyes. How do creationists deal with that? They declare it to just be "adaptation" or "microevolution". But ask them what the difference is between "adaptation" and "evolution" and you'll see so much dancing you'll think it's a party. And naturally "microevolution" is evolution, since it has the term "evolution" in it!

Nope. When we see organisms adapting to their environment "before our eyes," we rule out the possibility that random mutations and natural selection were involved.

Adaptation — which we see all the time happening rapidly — is the death knell for Darwinism and backs the creationists' account.

Evidence.

It helps to understand that Darwinism is simply a type of denialism. It has no scientific merit on its own (as evidenced by its absolute lack of contributions to science in the last couple of centuries) and exists solely as a religious belief that flies in the face of observed reality. That's why when you try and get them to explain what this "Darwinist model" even is and/or detail the evidence that supports it, they scramble around doing everything they can to turn the discussion to anything but the evidence. When they've done that, then they can go back to the much more natural "deny, deny, deny" mode.

Yes...of course. Things that appear intelligently designed, usually if not always, are intelligently designed. Things like codes, which contain information always are designed.
Strange how evolutionists hate to admit the logic in Stripes simple statement..."Things look designed, therefore it is reasonable to believe there was a designer."

Yep. :up:

Their policy of zero concessions means they cannot allow a rational discussion to play out. They always resort to fallacious reasoning and mockery. Always.

 

[Jose Fly]

You've been painted a clear and stable picture of the TOL creationist beliefs.

As we'll see, that's not even true over the course of just a couple of days. :chuckle:

Nope. Species is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific context.

Then you'd better tell 6days, who said just the other day, "The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation."

Adaptation. Creatures show the ability to change in response to their environment.

What's the difference between that and evolution?

Nope. When we see organisms adapting to their environment "before our eyes," we rule out the possibility that random mutations and natural selection were involved.

Then you'd better tell 6days, who in the same post as above said, "speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome."

 

[Tyrathca]

All true.
However, as evidenced here in TOL, evolutionism is a religion. Evolutionists defend their faith and attempt to get converts.

String Theory is more a religion than Evolution. You've bastardised the word religion so badly even claiming the superiority of your preferred football team team would count as a religion...

Dr. Michael Ruse, a atheist and hard core evolutionists says “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality …. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Oh well if someone said it somewhere and you agree then it must be true! I presume if I find someone who says the opposite you wont find that equally convincing?

In the Australian Skeptics magazine, 'The Southern Skeptic', "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God."
Catch that??? No matter how good the evidence is supporting creation, they won't believe!!

No it only means that they would accept creation timelines and events but would not necessarily accept that a god was the cause (i.e. they'd consider alternatives, such as they got the events right but were mistaken as to what caused it)

 

[Rosenritter]

And it all had to come into existence at the same time, i.e., male and female, biologically complete in every way or it all would have become a 'no go'.

Darn it, Cross Reference, I was saving the "male and female" question for later, perhaps when someone got specially uppity or obnoxious. I was hoping GCThomas would actually answer what happened next where he envisioned the "lump of rock" now existing orbiting a sun and was looking forward to watching him squirm (not that I mean this in an evil way) explaining how an organism which could reproduce itself splits into male and female, an obvious defect that would interfere with reproductive ability.

Maybe someone else will answer here but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Stripe]

As we'll see, that's not even true over the course of just a couple of days.

Nope.

For years, the story has been consistent.

Then you'd better tell 6days, who said just the other day, "The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation."

How about you tell him? :idunno:

What's the difference between that and evolution?

No random mutations. No natural selection.

Reading is good for you. :up:

 

[6days]

Oh well if someone said it somewhere and you agree then it must be true! I presume if I find someone who says the opposite you wont find that equally convincing?

It's just that its a bit more compelling, and a wee bit more fun when high profile members from your team admit we are correct.

No it only means that they would accept creation timelines and events but would not necessarily accept that a god was the cause (i.e. they'd consider alternatives, such as they got the events right but were mistaken as to what caused it)

A tacit admission to your religious belief system... a willingness to accept any unscientific explanation...and an unwillingness to follow evidence wherever it might lead.

 

[Cross Reference]

Darn it, Cross Reference, I was saving the "male and female" question for later, perhaps when someone got specially uppity or obnoxious. I was hoping GCThomas would actually answer what happened next where he envisioned the "lump of rock" now existing orbiting a sun and was looking forward to watching him squirm (not that I mean this in an evil way) explaining how an organism which could reproduce itself splits into male and female, an obvious defect that would interfere with reproductive ability.

Maybe someone else will answer here but I wouldn't hold my breath.

No worries. They will say it all started out as a transgender intention and somewhere along the way one of them needed a greater sexual contrast in their life when needing to take a pee.. . . .

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

For years, the story has been consistent.

As this thread shows, it's not even consistent from one day to the next. :chuckle:

How about you tell him?

I guess you can't be bothered.

No random mutations. No natural selection.

Can you provide an example of a population adapting over time, where there was neither mutations nor selection?

 

[Rosenritter]

As this thread shows, it's not even consistent from one day to the next. :chuckle:



I guess you can't be bothered.



Can you provide an example of a population adapting over time, where there was neither mutations nor selection?

People move and speak a new language. Or people move to a warmer climate and lose weight. Population changes diet and gains or loses height, jaw structure, etc (Australian Aborigines.)

 

[Rosenritter]

By what evidence did you determine that breast milk is "designed"?

How do you anticipate that breast milk "evolved?" that's a pretty complex system that only has limited application.

 

[Jose Fly]

People move and speak a new language. Or people move to a warmer climate and lose weight.

And that's it? "Adaptation = behavioral changes"? How do you go from one breeding pair to hundreds or thousands of species in just a few thousand years via only behavioral changes?

Population changes diet and gains or loses height, jaw structure, etc (Australian Aborigines.)

How do you change jaw structure without mutations?

 

[Jose Fly]

How do you anticipate that breast milk "evolved?" that's a pretty complex system that only has limited application.

You're dodging the question. Again, by what evidence did you determine that breast milk is "designed"?

 

[Stripe]

It's not even consistent from one day to the next.

Nope. Well-defined terms and solid evidential support. Those are the things you have to deal with, not semantics.

I guess you can't be bothered.

Can you provide an example of a population adapting over time, where there was neither mutations nor selection?

Typical Darwinist switch and bait. We were talking about adaptation over a short timeframe — "in front of our eyes."

No random mutations or natural selection could play a part in that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. Well-defined terms and solid evidential support. Those are the things you have to deal with, not semantics.

You can say "nope" all you like, but the record is right there for all to see. 6days says rapid speciation, mutations, and natural selection are all part of the "Biblical model of creation", whereas you say they don't happen.

We were talking about adaptation over a short timeframe — "in front of our eyes."

No random mutations or natural selection could play a part in that.

How about a specific example? You know....evidence.

 

[Stripe]

You can talk semantics all you like, but the record is right there for all to see.

How about a specific example? You know....evidence.

This is a perfect example of how Darwinists dodge challenges. In a case of adaptation over a short timeframe — "in front of our eyes" — no random mutations or natural selection could play a part.

If you want an example, provide one yourself. After all, it was you who said: "Evolution occurs all the time right before our eyes."

So let's hear your example of "evolution" happening "right in front of our eyes" and we will quickly show how no random mutations or natural selection could be involved. :up:

 

[Rosenritter]

And that's it? "Adaptation = behavioral changes"? How do you go from one breeding pair to hundreds or thousands of species in just a few thousand years via only behavioral changes?



How do you change jaw structure without mutations?

The jaw structure develops in reaction to stimuli. This isn't controversial. Peoples from areas that chew things that are hard develop stronger wider jaws. Without the hard foods the jaw develops more narrowly. You would see this develop during youth, so a cultural change could be seen in one generation.

Dried squid is a very tough snack food that is popular in Korea. It's known that kids that chew squid snacks will develop broader jaws. A more dramatic example can be seen where "modern" diet was introduced to Aboriginal tribes. Within a generation all the "modern" problems of jaw structure and tooth decay entered as well, whereas before these were thought to be "genetic" they were actually caused by diet. I can link you to an electronic copy of "Cure Tooth Decay Naturally" if you are specifically interested, just private message me.

 

[Jose Fly]

You can talk semantics all you like, but the record is right there for all to see.

Yep. 6days says rapid speciation, mutations, and natural selection are all part of the "Biblical model of creation", you say they don't happen, and then you try and assert that it's all perfectly consistent.

And the rest of us sit back and laugh.

In a case of adaptation over a short timeframe — "in front of our eyes" — no random mutations or natural selection could play a part.

Gee....for someone who is so adamant that we discuss evidence, you sure are reluctant to cite any.

If you want an example, provide one yourself.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Again, provide some examples of populations adapting without mutations or selection.

So let's hear your example of "evolution" happening "right in front of our eyes" and we will quickly show how no random mutations or natural selection could be involved.

Sure.

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

A population that evolved a new trait and increased fitness due to a specific set of mutations that were selected for and became fixed in the population.