The Neck of the Giraffe

@kazetnagorra said
New genetic information can arise due to so-called "mutations."

Using pre-existing genetic information that is already there. So what?

@kellyjay said
Nothing touching the point as usual.
Small wonder you hold on to your beliefs if you refuse to defend them but hang
on to them nonetheless.

I tried to educate you for days on end - as did others - but your posts
indicate that you are unable to understand what others are talking about.

It is not that you have a different belief. It is that you do not understand
evolution which you continually demonstrate post after post.

Like me asking about the divinity of Christ's third leg.
It's gibberish.

@wolfgang59 said
I tried to educate you for days on end - as did others - but your posts
indicate that you are unable to understand what others are talking about.

It is not that you have a different belief. It is that you do not understand
evolution which you continually demonstrate post after post.

Like me asking about the divinity of Christ's third leg.
It's gibberish.

You think simply stating your point of view, proves your point of view. I don’t agree with some of the beliefs surrounding evolution. It doesn’t matter if you believe me when I say what I did for ~20 years. The issues remain that I brought up, unaddressed, outside of dismissing them out of hand. I suppose if that is all you can do, that is all you can do.

@kellyjay said
You think simply stating your point of view, proves your point of view.

No.
Again you miss the point.

@wolfgang59 said
No.
Again you miss the point.

Hardly, a neck doesn't just grow over time without affecting everything connected
to it and that is more than just a few tweaks in process over time. Not discussing
the requirements necessary is wise on your part.

@kellyjay said
Hardly, a neck doesn't just grow over time without affecting everything connected
to it and that is more than just a few tweaks in process over time. Not discussing
the requirements necessary is wise on your part.

Evolutionists muse that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.
G.K. Chesterton

@dj2becker said
Evolutionists muse that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.
G.K. Chesterton

I have seen it said that they acknowledge life looks to be designed but they claim
it isn't, instead it just looks that way because natural processes can make it look
that way. That is the claim that isn't backed up! No one can explain the
information required for life to be introduced into existence out of non-living
material. The claims about small changes in life are acceptable, but that is life
that is already properly reproducing, that life moving through time encounters
things that can cause it to have to adapt.

Adaptation isn't what occurred at the beginning, the beginning not only required
all the necessary material, but the formation of material has to be such that it
is turned into information, that can cause life to repeatedly reproduce the same
way, or there would be no lifeforms at all.

Nothing about any of this is observable, so it can only taken on faith, that life
can look designed, but isn't.

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.” -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

@suzianne said
“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.” -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

What facts surrounding the beginning of life do you think science has? Far as I know there are only three, no more.

Fact 1. There is life here today.
Fact 2. At one point there was no life here.
Fact 3. At some point between then and now life began.

After that no one has seen what occurred they can only speculate, guess, hypothesis, and so on.

Looking at how life is put together most agree it has the appearance of being designed, some feel “appearance” is it. Others think it appears designed because it is, thus the debate!

@kellyjay said
Hardly, a neck doesn't just grow over time without affecting everything connected
to it and that is more than just a few tweaks in process over time. Not discussing
the requirements necessary is wise on your part.

And again.

@kellyjay said
I have seen it said that they acknowledge life looks to be designed but they claim
it isn't, instead it just looks that way because natural processes can make it look
that way. That is the claim that isn't backed up! No one can explain the
information required for life to be introduced into existence out of non-living
material. The claims about small changes in life are ...[text shortened]... t any of this is observable, so it can only taken on faith, that life
can look designed, but isn't.

And again.

Stop digging.
You are getting deeper and deeper into that pit of Ignorance.

@wolfgang59 said
And again.

Stop digging.
You are getting deeper and deeper into that pit of Ignorance.

Zzzzz

@wolfgang59 said
And again.

Stop digging.
You are getting deeper and deeper into that pit of Ignorance.

You're just jealous.

If you were a "salvation by faith alone" Christian, you too could sincerely believe that things are true just because you believe them - things are determined to be true by "faith alone".

The best part is that it applies to your self-image as well. Think of the boost for your self-esteem when you'll be able to think extremely highly of yourself regardless of the facts. Of course you'll have to whitewash it with false humility, but all things considered it's a small price to have to pay.

@KellyJay

'The Design Argument is probably the most popular argument for the existence of God. Even a nonreligious person may look at the world, so complex and beautiful, and decide it must have been created by somebody very smart and powerful. Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson thought religions were absurd, but even they thought there must have been some kind of Creator.

But there are some problems with this argument.

First, Christians do not argue for God in general, but for a specific god: Yahweh. They’re really saying, “The world is complex, so Yahweh must have created it.” But we might as well say, “The world is complex, so Mbombo must have created it.” Or, “The world is complex, so an alien race must have designed it.”

Even if it succeeds, the Design Argument only gets you as far as a Creator. It does not support the existence of Yahweh any better than it supports a million other possible creators. And given how much bad design there is in the world, I think it’s more likely to have been designed by a confused committee of gods than a single, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god. Our world looks like the work of Congress.'


http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2520

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@KellyJay

'The Design Argument is probably the most popular argument for the existence of God. Even a nonreligious person may look at the world, so complex and beautiful, and decide it must have been created by somebody very smart and powerful. Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson thought religions were absurd, but even they thought there must have been some kind of Creat ...[text shortened]... all-good god. Our world looks like the work of Congress.'


http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2520

One question at a time, it is either put together by a plan and purpose or not. Simply because one answer leads to another question does not mean that the proper answer shouldn’t do that. Forbidding that for just that reason isn’t dealing with the data looking for an answer, that would be it’s shopping for an answer we like, so we can make our understanding of the data fit that.