Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can't leave your own nonsense alone? Well, that makes sense at least.
Because nonsense like this just can't be left as is: imagine the confusion of those who find this a million years from now! They might actually think we settled the issue. We can't have that now, can we?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA million years from now?
Because nonsense like this just can't be left as is: imagine the confusion of those who find this a million years from now! They might actually think we settled the issue. We can't have that now, can we?
If we're right, we probably won't be here having evolved out of the place.
If you're right, we probably won't be here either, having been 'armageddoned' out of existence.
But I take your point.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzScott,
Please, illustrate for us then exactly what did happen, why things are the way that they are, why the world appears to be 4.5 byo, why there is a fossil record. The whole shi-bang please, we want to know exactly what happened why, and how.
When you notice similarity in the characteristics of living creatures, is relationships of descent the only possible interpretation to this?
It may be asserted that a scheme of similar characteristics is seen in animals. But that this proves relationship of one animal descending from another is only one possible interpretation of this evidence.
Couldn't it also be similarity of design? Do you allow for that possibility, at least?
I mean since these creatures all live in the same biosphere, if designed, you would expect some similitude.
Originally posted by jaywillIt's the only explanation consistent with all the established facts.
Scott,
When you notice similarity in the characteristics of living creatures, is relationships of descent the only possible interpretation to this?
It may be asserted that a scheme of similar characteristics is seen in animals. But that this proves relationship of one animal descending from another is only one possible interpretation of this ev ...[text shortened]... these creatures all live in the same biosphere, if designed, you would expect some similitude.
Originally posted by jaywillIf the designer had infinite power, there would be no need for similitude. Similarity in one designer's creations comes from imperfection in the designer's capabilities; he uses the tricks he knows, while there can be many equally effective methods for accomplishing the same end that he does not happen to know.
Scott,
When you notice similarity in the characteristics of living creatures, is relationships of descent the only possible interpretation to this?
It may be asserted that a scheme of similar characteristics is seen in animals. But that this proves relationship of one animal descending from another is only one possible interpretation of this ev ...[text shortened]... these creatures all live in the same biosphere, if designed, you would expect some similitude.
4 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSome observations about your comment:
If the designer had infinite power, there would be no need for similitude. Similarity in one designer's creations comes from imperfection in the designer's capabilities; he uses the tricks he knows, while there can be many equally effective methods for accomplishing the same end that he does not happen to know.
If you claim to know what a sub-optimal design is then that implies that you know what a perfect design is. If you claim to know what a perfect design is then don't you admit that design is detectable? So by infering that you can recognize design in nature, whether perfect or imperfect then you infer that Intelligent Design is imperically detectable.
You make above a implied claim that you recognize perfect and imperfect design. So Intelligent Design Theory is afterall a science then.
Second, a sub-optimal design doesn't mean that there is no design. So if we take your suggestion that you recognize sub-optimal design, that doesn't rule out a Designer. A sub-optimal design does not prove no Intelligent Design.
You also infer that you know what the objective and purpose of the Designer are. It may serve the Designer's purpose that there be your imperfections in nature. Would a "perfect" frog or a "perfect" horse be one that never has to eat and sleep? Would a "perfect" living thing be one that depends upon nothing?
It may serve the designer's purpose that all living things be dependent. Assuming this dependency of all created life is "imperfection" is only an assumption on your part. You could also allow for the fact that the imperfection is exactly what the designer ordered.
Suppose the designer wants to make a statement that only the Designer is perfect and independent and all other created things are dependent?
Infinite power does no dictate that there would be no similiar designs. The designer might well make all living things totally different from one another. But to communicate to dependent and imperfect humans (or humans who somehow became imperfect of their own accord) the Creator might supply indications of intelligence design tailored to be recognized as design by finite minds.
You are making assumptions about the motives of an infinitely knowledgeable designer which might not concur with the designer's purposes.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you believe that "established facts" led Darwinist Stephen Gould to come up with a Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Evolution?
It's the only explanation consistent with all the established facts.
I believe that there were established facts about the fossil record which led to problems with evolutionary theory. In reaction to those established facts about the fossil record Dr. Gould said:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1). Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2). Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
Gould, an Evolutionist, rejected the gradualism Darwinism and formulated his theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium".
Why would you say that the established facts which led to the necessity of an alternative to Darwinist gradualism exclude another possible explanation like similiarity in intelligent design? If the fossil record reveals species fully formed until exinction rather than directional change, how does than totally exclude an explanation of similarity in Intelligent Design?
Originally posted by jaywillPE is simply gradualism on a different timescale.
Do you believe that "established facts" led Darwinist Stephen Gould to come up with a Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of Evolution?
I believe that there were established facts about the fossil record which led to problems with evolutionary theory. In reaction to those established facts about the fossil record Dr. Gould said:
[b]"The history of most fo ...[text shortened]... change, how does than totally exclude an explanation of similarity in Intelligent Design?
From Wiki;
"Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism[2] (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though evolutionary change aggregates "quickly" between geological sediments—relative to the species' full geological existence—change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:
Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[3]
The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record."
Try to get your facts straight before you challenge an evolutionary biologist on evolutionary biology.
Originally posted by jaywillStrawman!
If you claim to know what a sub-optimal design is then that implies that you know what a perfect design is.
Pray tell, what is the "optimality" about the appendix? It has no functionality, and often leads to disease.
It is not necessary to know perfection to know what is not perfect.
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzErrelevant to my point.
Strawman!
Pray tell, what is the "optimality" about the appendix? It has no functionality, and often leads to disease.
It is not necessary to know perfection to know what is not perfect.
I don't think you understand my point let alone have to right to call it a Strawman.
You recognize design period. That is why you are objecting to a suggestion that an appendix is optimally designed.
Did I say an appendix was optimally designed? Where?
Did I say any other physiological part of any creature was optimally designed? Pray tell where?
Whether you can recognize perfection or not you admit that you can recognize design. So the why criticize a scientific theory built on recognizing Intelligent Design where it can be detected?
It not a strawman argument. Its just that your argument burns up like straw.
Recognition of design is an imperical skill to be learned. Intelligent Design then can classify as a scientific discipline.
2 edits
Originally posted by David CI am seperating my faith from my attitude about science.
...and you aren't?
I may have idea about the Creator. I have not entered them in this discussion. Elsewhere I quoted some Scripture as a basis of my belief.
But this thread is about what is wrong with evolution. This is my first series of posts to this thread.
And what I am wondering if it is wrong or not is whether similarity in charachteristics of species MUST only be interpreted as relationships of descent.
IE The bird has a certain hip structure and the dinosaur has it too. So the birds must have descended from the dinosours.
Can these relationships be possibly explained by similarity of design rather than relationships of offspring to parents.
I think a Yes or No would help. Yes, by itself doesn't insist that Vishnu is the Designer, or Allah, or Yahweh. It doesn't even insist that the Designer has infinite skill.
It could be the Great Athiest Designer for all I know ... at this stage!
Look if I shift gears to argue what is wrong with evolution from a spiritual standpoint as it contradicts my faith I'll flag you that I'm in that mode.
Right now, I am probing if the assumption of relationships of descent is the only interpretation of the evidence. What do you think?