Who's lying now?

[Anachronous Rex]

Evidence for a creator?

1 life comes from life
2 humans have humans as offspring
3 there is design in the life we see.

Evidence is that which points to a single conclusion to the exception of all others. Nothing you present qualifies.

 

[Unwardil]

And actually, your evidence points to the contrary. Evidence of design would be life coming from life generating factories. Designed things DO NOT come from other a-like designed things. Cars, which are designed, do not come from other cars. They come from factories or are painstakingly assembled by hand by people. Think of any example of a human designed thing and this remains true. Designed things DO NOT self replicate. To do so is a property of life.

If life was designed, we should see whole groups of people who are exactly identical in every possible way. Sort of like manufacturing years in cars. We do not see this. We do not see a line of 2012 Asians and 2012 Caucasians. This is because life designs it's self through selection processes following natural laws with no directing hand whatsoever.

 

[Gnug215]

No, you don't understand evolution, you don't even have the faintest idea of what it is and how it works. And this is the only thing you've managed to prove in this thread.

Actually I do know what the scientists are saying. But I don't think they know what they are saying.

deluxe, no. One example of your obvious lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution is your comments about the Crocoduck picture.

It demonstrates without a doubt that you do not properly understand the Theory of Evolution.

You're basically saying that 2+2=17, and then you keep claiming that you DO understand math.

How can we make it clear to you that you don't have a proper understanding of this?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

So, deluxe, would you agree that the only way that scientists can get an accurate insight into the workings of life, the planet, the universe, etc, is to study the one and only record of God's actions, the word of the Bible?

I think the scientist would be light years a head of where they are now, if they recognized the creator. As it is now they have been stagnate for the last 150 years. All branches of science, has been made to try and fit this 'evolutionary' idea. With the result of still not knowing how life started, and realizing that man left to himself will destroy everything. And the bottom line is that the scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth, and himself. So even though the scientists have done many good things in their research, in the end it is destructive. The reason this is so, is becasue, they are not going in the right direction.

You are once again making a moral argument, not a scientific one. I could just as easily claim your ignorance and intellectual laziness were evil, and therefore nothing you said meant anything either. :roll:

 

[deluxe]

Many would have arisen at the same time as one another. Others would have arisen afterwards, making use of previous adaptations. If we use those examples of yours: blood was probably a very early development, but it might not have been pumped around by anything. It might have just been a fluid that bathed the cells of the animal.

What do you mean arisen? Do you mean just happened? How did they just happen? Why would it just happen, when the host was doing OK before? What you are talking about here is that these materials came about because down the road they would be needed. That is planing. And becasue we see completed systems that work, that is creation.

One bone of a leg, is a hindrance to the host. But how does 'evoluiton' know to make another bone with the proper shaped ends, and then foot bones none of which are attached to each other. Then figure out how to connect these bones and then run nerves to them, and the figure out how to place the muscles and sinew .These bones have to create blood so the muscle work. All this has to be together at the same time and all in working order, before any thing will work and be useful. This is all against what 'evoluiotn' is about. Little changes does not cover this. And these parts did not just arise. 'evoluiotn' would have gotten rid of the developing parts long before they would be useful for anything.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Many would have arisen at the same time as one another. Others would have arisen afterwards, making use of previous adaptations. If we use those examples of yours: blood was probably a very early development, but it might not have been pumped around by anything. It might have just been a fluid that bathed the cells of the animal.

What do you mean arisen? Do you mean just happened? How did they just happen? Why would it just happen, when the host was doing OK before? What you are talking about here is that these materials came about because down the road they would be needed. That is planing. And becasue we see completed systems that work, that is creation.

One bone of a leg, is a hindrance to the host. But how does 'evoluiton' know to make another bone with the proper shaped ends, and then foot bones none of which are attached to each other. Then figure out how to connect these bones and then run nerves to them, and the figure out how to place the muscles and sinew .These bones have to create blood so the muscle work. All this has to be together at the same time and all in working order, before any thing will work and be useful. This is all against what 'evoluiotn' is about. Little changes does not cover this. And these parts did not just arise. 'evoluiotn' would have gotten rid of the developing parts long before they would be useful for anything.

"It is commonly held that skeleton variation due to noise is unmanageable. It is also believed that smoothing, invoked to combat noise, creates no new structures, as in the causality principle for smoothing images. We demonstrate that both views are incorrect. We characterize how smooth points of the skeleton evolve under a general boundary evolution, with the corollary that, when the boundary is smoothed by a geometric heat equation, the skeleton evolves according to a related geometric heat equation. The surprise is that, while certain aspects of the skeleton simplify, as one would expect, others can behave wildly, including the creation of new skeleton branches. Fortunately such sections can be flagged as ligature, or those portions of the skeleton related to shape concavities. Our analysis also includes junctions and an explicit model for boundary noise. Provided a smoothness condition is met, the skeleton can often reduce noise. However when the smoothness condition is violated, the skeleton can change violently, which, we speculate, corresponds to situations in which "parts" are created."

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=791236

 

[Welshidiot]

So, deluxe, would you agree that the only way that scientists can get an accurate insight into the workings of life, the planet, the universe, etc, is to study the one and only record of God's actions, the word of the Bible?

I think the scientist would be light years a head of where they are now, if they recognized the creator.

But how can they when the "creator" has intervened and changed the rules of nature on an extreme level (as you've stated in previous posts), *then put them back again when he's achieved his purpose (*otherwise conditions would be different now)?

As it is now they have been stagnate for the last 150 years.

But enormous advances have been made in all areas of science in the last 150 years. If it hadn't we wouldn't be having this exchange via the internet.

All branches of science, has been made to try and fit this 'evolutionary' idea.

This is just silly. In what way has Fluid Dynamics (for example) been affected by Darwin's theory of the evolution of life?

With the result of still not knowing how life started, and realizing that man left to himself will destroy everything. And the bottom line is that the scientists have given man the ability to ruin the earth, and himself. So even though the scientists have done many good things in their research, in the end it is destructive. The reason this is so, is becasue, they are not going in the right direction.

Well it's not their fault, is it? The "creator" keeps intervening in the natural processes of nature, making massive alterations to life-forms and the planet, and then returning nature's processes to normal, thus leaving no trace of his intervention.
You've said so many times now, and quoted the Bible as "evidence" of it.

Evidence for a creator?

1 life comes from life
2 humans have humans as offspring
3 there is design in the life we see.

Oh dear, this again.
Deluxe why do you keep asking for a non-Bible based response to this, whilst at the same time implicitly insisting that the only accurate record of what happened in the past is the Bible?
And,...why do you expect to see any evidence of divine involvement, when you've told us many times that the "creator" intervenes in the natural processes of nature, makes radical changes to life-forms and the planet, and then changes nature back so that noone can see what he's done?

Lets re-word your three facts so that they no longer conflict with your own statements:

1: What we currently see is that life comes from life
2: What we currently see is humans having human offspring
3: A lot of current life-forms are highly complex in behaviour and structure

Which now it's reworded doesn't sound like proof of anything,....it's just some observations about the universe as we currently see it.

 

[deluxe]

You are once again making a moral argument, not a scientific one. I could just as easily claim your ignorance and intellectual laziness were evil, and therefore nothing you said meant anything either. :roll:

Morality is a human trait. Which really has nothing to do with 'evolution' . Morality, is against what 'evoluiton' stands for. So where did morality come from?
Is it because for all humans to live together we need internal principles, that guide us. But what we see today is an eroding of that morality becasue people do not want to be accountable to a God. Thus you see the world we have today. The scientists are part of that eroding of morality, becasue they say there is no God. So now what you have is an attitude that,.. I can do what I want as long as I don't get caught. Rather than, it's not right to do that , even though no one see's you, but you have a law unto yourself to do right. Thats a big difference.

 

[deluxe]

Which now it's reworded doesn't sound like proof of anything,....it's just some observations about the universe as we currently see it.

The proof is in the details of those 3 facts.

 

[Gnug215]

No, you don't understand evolution, you don't even have the faintest idea of what it is and how it works. And this is the only thing you've managed to prove in this thread.

Actually I do know what the scientists are saying. But I don't think they know what they are saying.

deluxe, no. One example of your obvious lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution is your comments about the Crocoduck picture.

It demonstrates without a doubt that you do not properly understand the Theory of Evolution.

You're basically saying that 2+2=17, and then you keep claiming that you DO understand math.

How can we make it clear to you that you don't have a proper understanding of this?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You are once again making a moral argument, not a scientific one. I could just as easily claim your ignorance and intellectual laziness were evil, and therefore nothing you said meant anything either. :roll:

Morality is a human trait. Which really has nothing to do with 'evolution' . Morality, is against what 'evoluiton' stands for. So where did morality come from?

Actually, morality has quite a bit to do with evolution. Our brains probably evolved to their current size to keep track of favors, such as who owed each other food and such. Morality is mostly about survival issues and ties in neatly with evolution.

Is it because for all humans to live together we need internal principles, that guide us. But what we see today is an eroding of that morality becasue people do not want to be accountable to a God. Thus you see the world we have today. The scientists are part of that eroding of morality, becasue they say there is no God. So now what you have is an attitude that,.. I can do what I want as long as I don't get caught. Rather than, it's not right to do that , even though no one see's you, but you have a law unto yourself to do right. Thats a big difference.

Actually, society has been getting very moral as of late. Violent crimes, worldwide, are at one of the lowest points they've been in the whole of history. We stopped treating people like property (for the most part) about a century ago. There are very few wars; again, fewer right now then nearly any time in history. Now, granted, property crimes are a bit higher then the were fifty years ago. However, when you balance that against fewer violent crimes it seems like a fair trade off, and there is unquestionably fewer then before the Renaissance when institutional theft was the default.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You are once again making a moral argument, not a scientific one. I could just as easily claim your ignorance and intellectual laziness were evil, and therefore nothing you said meant anything either. :roll:

Morality is a human trait. Which really has nothing to do with 'evolution' . Morality, is against what 'evoluiton' stands for. So where did morality come from?
Is it because for all humans to live together we need internal principles, that guide us. But what we see today is an eroding of that morality becasue people do not want to be accountable to a God. Thus you see the world we have today. The scientists are part of that eroding of morality, becasue they say there is no God. So now what you have is an attitude that,.. I can do what I want as long as I don't get caught. Rather than, it's not right to do that , even though no one see's you, but you have a law unto yourself to do right. Thats a big difference.

Morality relates to our obligations to one another. Do you really think that a species which felt that it had no obligations towards other members of its species would be more successful then one which felt that it did?

How effective do you think wolf packs would be if they were all at each others throats all the time?

Yet another example of how you do not understand evolution.

 

[deluxe]

deluxe, no. One example of your obvious lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution is your comments about the Crocoduck picture.

It demonstrates without a doubt that you do not properly understand the Theory of Evolution.

You're basically saying that 2+2=17, and then you keep claiming that you DO understand math.

How can we make it clear to you that you don't have a proper understanding of this?

The equation is wrong, If go by the evidence
For the scientists it is 0+0=1.
The start to life is 0
'evoluiotn' is 0
but the scientists say both of these 0's equal a positive result.

 

[nasher168]

What do you mean arisen? Do you mean just happened? How did they just happen? Why would it just happen, when the host was doing OK before? What you are talking about here is that these materials came about because down the road they would be needed. That is planing. And becasue we see completed systems that work, that is creation.

I mean evolved through the process of natural selection. The animals with the positive mutations would do better than the other animals and so be more likely to have children. At no point were any of these adaptations definitely going to be useful many generations later. They were all useful right then to the animals that had them. Eventually, the entire population was made up of animals with the mutations.
Then, if a mutation arose that made an animal even better, the same thing would happen again. You see?

One bone of a leg, is a hindrance to the host.

Which is why it wouldn't evolve like that.

But how does 'evoluiton' know to make another bone with the proper shaped ends, and then foot bones none of which are attached to each other. Then figure out how to connect these bones and then run nerves to them, and the figure out how to place the muscles and sinew .These bones have to create blood so the muscle work.

Which is why all the bones, muscles, tendons, nerves etc would evolve at the same time. You're not getting this bit, are you?
Don't think of an animal as a collection of little parts. Think of it as one thing. It is that one thing that has to survive and reproduce. Not the individual bones or nerves.

All this has to be together at the same time and all in working order, before any thing will work and be useful.

Not true. Each step of the way was useful to the organisms at the time in some way. Or they would have died before they reproduced.

'evoluiotn' would have gotten rid of the developing parts long before they would be useful for anything.

Yes! Because all of what you just said is not what the scientists are saying happens.

 

[nasher168]

Also, stop writing evolution in speech marks. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it is exempt from normal grammatical rules. Creation. See?

 

[deluxe]

Actually, morality has quite a bit to do with evolution. Our brains probably evolved to their current size to keep track of favors, such as who owed each other food and such. Morality is mostly about survival issues and ties in neatly with evolution.

Did you notice you said probable 'evolved ' this is an assumption, that we 'evolved'. If we 'evolved' there would be no need for morality. We would just need bigger teeth and more speed. Don't say we are smarter now, becasue with our intelligence, we are going bring everything down, how smart is that?
So morality came from creation. It is built into us. It needs a God to be effective. But it can be eroded.

 

[nasher168]

Did you notice you said probable 'evolved ' this is an assumption, that we 'evolved'. If we 'evolved' there would be no need for morality. We would just need bigger teeth and more speed.

Imagine two populations of humans. One of them takes care of its own members, looks after its children, helps others. The members of the other population don't care about each other at all.

Which do you think is more likely to pass on its genes?

That right there is why we have morality.

 

[australopithecus]

Evidence for a creator?

1 life comes from life
2 humans have humans as offspring
3 there is design in the life we see.

Ok, say for the sake of argument we accept this nonsense premise. Now, evidence for this creator being the God of the Bible?

 

[deluxe]

I mean evolved through the process of natural selection. The animals with the positive mutations would do better than the other animals and so be more likely to have children. At no point were any of these adaptations definitely going to be useful many generations later. They were all useful right then to the animals that had them. Eventually, the entire population was made up of animals with the mutations.
Then, if a mutation arose that made an animal even better, the same thing would happen again. You see?

I understand adaptation, and natural selection, and even mutations, and breeding. To get the most survival population. But what doesn't happen is one animal 'evolving' into another. If you go by the evidence, humans will only get more humans. And mutation do not get you a new animal. Darwin's finches showed that. So does a Lion and a Tiger. You get the Liger, but it stops there. But you do have a variety of cats.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I mean evolved through the process of natural selection. The animals with the positive mutations would do better than the other animals and so be more likely to have children. At no point were any of these adaptations definitely going to be useful many generations later. They were all useful right then to the animals that had them. Eventually, the entire population was made up of animals with the mutations.
Then, if a mutation arose that made an animal even better, the same thing would happen again. You see?

I understand adaptation, and natural selection, and even mutations, and breeding. To get the most survival population. But what doesn't happen is one animal 'evolving' into another. If you go by the evidence, humans will only get more humans. And mutation do not get you a new animal. Darwin's finches showed that. So does a Lion and a Tiger. You get the Liger, but it stops there. But you do have a variety of cats.

STOP IT. JUST FUCKING STOP IT.


They've just fucking EXPLAINED how individual small mutations that to little changes, together, one after another, over milions of years, can bring about HUGE changes. You can't only believe in microevolution. If you believe in that you MUST believe in macroevolution. One follows from the other.

And they've explained OVER AND OVER fucking again that scientists are NOT, repeat bloody NOT saying that one animal brings about another completely different one. So stop the strawman, you deceiving succubus of stubbornness.

EDIT: And NO, you do NOT understand natural selection.