Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by KellyJay
You say this like it is no big deal with any understanding as to why!
Exactly what makes you think this isn't some super programming feat of
unbelievable skill and foresight?

You again are taking preexisting DNA and jumbling it around, if it is no big
deal start from scratch and create your own!

"...with any understanding as to why" what?

What makes me think that there's no superintelligence involved is the lack of need for one.

Starting from scratch? Are you talking about abiogenesis again? You are, aren't you?

Originally posted by C Hess
"...with any understanding as to why" what?

What makes me think that there's no superintelligence involved is the lack of need for one.

Starting from scratch? Are you talking about abiogenesis again? You are, aren't you?

You take a something that is so well coded and play with it, it doesn't
break like most of ours would and you think because of that it wasn't
designed. So design one that can do that! You said it wasn't a big deal,
prove it!

Originally posted by KellyJay
As taught by people, science is taught by people, and people have different
views even while they are talking about the same subject matter.

A common design can also give us shared features.

As I said, evolution is really quite simple. All life is related and we all share a common ancestor. There is no 'differing of views ' on that statement.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please, every single one of us has a version of evolution ....

There is one Theory of Evolution.
It is not a belief - it is an established scientific theory.

Certain esoteric nuances may differ between the experts but the Theory remains.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
As I said, evolution is really quite simple. All life is related and we all share a common ancestor. There is no 'differing of views ' on that statement.

On that statement?
Common design can appear to make things look related when they are not.

When I say different views on evolution, I mean just that, I was not talking
about a simple statement.

People do view it differently, not everyone believes in Macro evolution, some
don't even like micro evolution either, some believe it happens quicker than
others for a variety of reasons. The details are where people differ, unless
you want to tell me that isn't the case everyone believes if all the exact
same way every where, even though you are talking to someone to
disagrees with you on details who professes to believe in it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Common design can appear to make things look related when they are not.

The only two reasonable explanations for what we see when we look at DNA are:
1. Common ancestry.
2. Common design specifically designed to make it appear as if common ancestry were the case.

There are mutations in Human DNA that are a result of purely random processes and serve no useful function. These exact same mutations can be observed in our closest relatives the Chimpanzees. Either we are related or some designer put those exact same mutations into Chimpanzees and humans for the sole purpose of making it look like we were related. There is no other rational explanation.

People do view it differently, not everyone believes in Macro evolution, some
don't even like micro evolution either, some believe it happens quicker than
others for a variety of reasons.
Evolution is not a religion. Belief doesn't matter. Facts matter. Theories matter. Verification of theories matter.

You don't believe in relativity.
It remains the case that the theory of relativity is a good theory and that time has been indisputably shown to be relative whether you believe it or not. Einsteinism isn't a religion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
On that statement?
Common design can appear to make things look related when they are not.

When I say different views on evolution, I mean just that, I was not talking
about a simple statement.

People do view it differently, not everyone believes in Macro evolution, some
don't even like micro evolution either, some believe it happens quicker than
...[text shortened]... ugh you are talking to someone to
disagrees with you on details who professes to believe in it?

You said, on the last page, - 'everyone single one of us has a version of evolution' - that's simply not true. I would say that mine, twhitehead, C Hess, vivify and wolfgang59's 'version', to name a few posters in this thread, is the same.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You said, on the last page, - 'everyone single one of us has a version of evolution' - that's simply not true. I would say that mine, twhitehead, C Hess, vivify and wolfgang59's 'version', to name a few posters in this thread, is the same.

You agree with them on every point of that theory, you guys must be very
tight!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You agree with them on every point of that theory, you guys must be very
tight!

I would imagine we're as 'tight' on the theory of evolution as much as we are tight on the Theory of Gravity and Newtons Laws of Motion to name a few.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I would imagine we're as 'tight' on the theory of evolution as much as we are tight on the Theory of Gravity and Newtons Laws of Motion to name a few.

How 'tight' we are depends more on how much we have studied those theories than on how much we believe in them.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I would imagine we're as 'tight' on the theory of evolution as much as we are tight on the Theory of Gravity and Newtons Laws of Motion to name a few.

That is very good, knowing there isn't a lick of difference of opinion between
you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is very good, knowing there isn't a lick of difference of opinion between
you.

There's plenty of difference's of opinion between us, just not when it comes to established scientific facts. 🙂

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There's plenty of difference's of opinion between us, just not when it comes to established scientific facts. 🙂

I think you guys put JW to shame on doctrine. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you guys put JW to shame on doctrine. 🙂

Your equating established scientific fact with JW literature?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you guys put JW to shame on doctrine. 🙂

Science is the one human endevour where challenges to any idea is welcome, and where empirical evidence, not opinion, has the last word. It's why I love it. Evolution is one of those theories that has so much empirical evidence speaking for it that most intelligent people accept it as fact now.

Some don't (for religious reasons, I take it?), but most do.