RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   
  Topic: Common Descent - Evidence No.1< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,05:48   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,15:28)
Thus within limited variation a purposeful designer would by necessity and as a consequence of prior creative choices preceeding life have to have common design elements for respiration, energy conversion, metabolism, waste elimination, sensory perception, movement and motion in a gravitational field.

The only other boundaries on such a designer would be his own character and sovereign intentions, that would be sufficient.

Evopeach,
Don't you subscribe to the Christian god as your designer?  Is not the Christian god omnipotent?

If that is the case, then why would the designer have limitations, necessities, and boundaries?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,08:48   

GCT,

Omnipetence is just one characteristc among many as with human personality. God is also consistently logical in His actions and would have a plan of action which in this case was the creation sequence from ex nihilo to the 7th day. He pronounced it good as in mature and perfect (prior to corruption and fall) as to operation and completeness. Thus any limitations or boundaries are self imposed so that for instance He cannot act to conflict with any of his characteristics. He cannot make imperfect plans which of His own choosing are flawed as opposed to results of actions permitted under free will which clearly cause enourmous problems and difficulties.

Thus the creation is logically consistent as portrayed and certain design choices naturally have to be consistent and complimentary it is actually a system of minimum complexity, maximum efficiency and remarkable reliability compared to our own creative efforts.

If your chief car designer made one line to burn wood, another coal, another diesel, another gasoline and another plutonium; one with three wheels , another with four, etc. would he be you designer for long.

Wasn't it Einstein who sad the universe is as simple as it can be and not one ounce less complex than it has to be.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,03:46   

Beautiful and Devastating to the Evos


I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own discipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

Watch what happens when this is admitted,

Evopeach

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,22:02   

^^~P34cH~^^

You really need some help in getting your points across (if you actually have any).  Every post of yours is just a new rant often having nothing to do with any of your previous "arguments."  I once again strongly urge you to google paragraph cohesion, but other than that speek gud englush yoo do.

Additionally, how is the above quote "devastating", and where is the "other theory" in that quote?  I count 2 laws 1 theory or 2 laws 3 theories, but I know you'll demand a recount.

Better luck next time Skip.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,03:21   

So you think the theory of electomagnetic wave propagation in the ether context was part of Newton's law of gravitation.

Yep!  You're as dumb as a post.

Devastating as in the current and recurrent theme from evos that teaching biology et al from an ID point and not evolution is impossible because evolution is proven without a doubt to be the ultimate bioogical thuth yet both of the previous theories from the quote ... similarly used in Scopes have been totally discarded in theoretical science.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,10:43   

Quote
Yep!  You're as dumb as a post.


Oh, the irony!

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,12:18   

evopreach,

To answer your question, no.

This just in from the AP.  The Scopes trial is over, the monkey lost.  If that ancient quote was so "devastating" where was it in 1987?  I am sick of hearing the IDC people yapping on about how devastating all their stuff is going to be, yet there is never any devastation (except on the science education of those they influence.)

So, you stated that you believe in a one time supernatural causation for the origin of life on Earth (exactly as it is accounted for in the Bible.)  Let me ask you this, what is the definition of supernatural?  You want the supernatural in the science classroom and you're the even keeled one?

Take your blasphemy somewhere else evopreach, you are not the mouthpiece of God and calling us all kinds of names is certainly falling far short of making disciples of all nations.

   
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2005,18:43   

That Scopes quote cannot possibly be true for the simple reason that by 1925, both classical Newtonian gravitation and the concept of "aether" had already been disproven, in 1915 and 1905, respectively.  Thus, I do not know where or when you found that quote, but neither of those concepts were seriously accepted by scientists at the time of the Scopes trial.

As for how one would determine the difference between "Common Design" and common descent, let's make a really simple hypothesis and test it out:

Let's look at birds and bats for a second.  Both fly using wings, so one could conclude that if they were a product of "common design," then their wings should be structurally very similar, since they were "designed" to perform very similar tasks.  On the other hand, if their wings were a product of descent with modification from ancestors within their separate classes, we should see very distinct differences.

Now, looking at their wings, we see a very serious difference almost instantaneously:  Birds' wings are modified from arms, and in fact retain many of the structures found in all terrestrial vertebrate arms, but modified for flight.  Bats' wings, on the other hand, are modified fingers with webbing in between, not arms.  While their fingers are similar to other terrestrial vertebrates, they are modified for flight, but in a completely different manner from birds.

Furthermore, one would expect that the collarbones for both animals would be similar, since both were "designed" for flight, right?  Well, not really.  For starters, birds' collarbones have a particular "wishbone" shape, whereas bats' collarbones are shaped more similarly to those of other mammals.  Furthermore, the bones of birds are structured differently on their interior, with hollow crevices, whereas again, bats' bones resemble those of other mammals.  One would also expect that their skulls would be more similar to each other, were they designed, since the strains of flight are similar.  But no, again, we find that birds' skulls are built more similarly to those of reptiles, with two fenestral openings and multiple jawbones, while bats' skulls are similar to mammals, with one fenestral opening and one jaw bone.

So, looking at this evidence, we can conclude that it does not match what we would expect if these two species were designed.  Designed flying animals would be more similar to each other than to walking animals. The evidence does, however, support a conclusion that birds and bats evolved from separate classes of walking animals, independently gaining the ability to fly.  Incidentally, when examining insect wings, we find that they are structurally very different from either bat or bird wings, a profound difference which makes no sense if flying animals were all designed, but fits perfectly with the theory that they evolved from walking animals from a completely different phylum.

Thus we find that the observed evidence disconfirms a design hypothesis, but is consistent with a hypothesis of descent with modification.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:49   

Hyper,

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm

The briefs and transcript from the appeal to the Tennessee Supreme court. So shove it butthead.

Your stupid bat bird example is typical of the red herring strawman approach and is meaningless. Common design does not mean identical design or can't you differentiate between say a volkwagon and a mecedes. Probably think they both decended from a chariot by small incremental design changes.

Macro evolution has never been observed, never will be observed... sort of by definition since it takes a few million years to occur. Speciation as you define it by micromutation is accepted by everyone just attributed to accounts other than purely mutation and natural selection.

The number of transitional fossils is pitiful and arguable in every case where even Darwin said there should be billions to examine.. none. not.. never. That alone should have killed this fairy tale years ago.

And all this time I thought bats were mammals and birds weren't .. you know different in about two jillion ways.

Please tell me you people have someone who can play in the big leagues and not these sophmoric types.

In the meantime may I send you Duane Gish's book "Evolution the Fossils Still Say No"... which will cause you to go sleepless for a week or two as your world falls away to oblivion.

See lies can't live forever even with George Soros, Satan and the ACLU behind them.

  
Moderator



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:56   

I'll post this in this thread, too: Read the board rules. Those who don't conform will be gone.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,05:37   

hahahahaha

By the way, be nice to George Soros, he spent millions of dollars to fight communism in Eastern Europe.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,08:36   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 30 2005,13:48)
GCT,

Omnipetence is just one characteristc among many as with human personality. God is also consistently logical in His actions and would have a plan of action which in this case was the creation sequence from ex nihilo to the 7th day. He pronounced it good as in mature and perfect (prior to corruption and fall) as to operation and completeness. Thus any limitations or boundaries are self imposed so that for instance He cannot act to conflict with any of his characteristics. He cannot make imperfect plans which of His own choosing are flawed as opposed to results of actions permitted under free will which clearly cause enourmous problems and difficulties.

Thus the creation is logically consistent as portrayed and certain design choices naturally have to be consistent and complimentary it is actually a system of minimum complexity, maximum efficiency and remarkable reliability compared to our own creative efforts.

If your chief car designer made one line to burn wood, another coal, another diesel, another gasoline and another plutonium; one with three wheels , another with four, etc. would he be you designer for long.

Wasn't it Einstein who sad the universe is as simple as it can be and not one ounce less complex than it has to be.

Omnipotence means no boundaries.  Design choices do NOT have to be consistent with an omnipotent god.  There need not be physical laws of the universe either.  It simply does not follow.

Also, your contention about a car designer is flawed as well.  An omnipotent god does not need to worry about such things.  Of course, your contention also means that if we find examples of bad design, then your contention is wrong, correct?

So, let's talk about bad design....
Giraffe necks
Human eyes
Human reproductive canal

Those examples should get you started.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:19   

CGT, First God planned, then He acted in agreement with His plan because otherwise He would be imperfect in His planning and not God, He would therefore in acting sequentially He created using common design elements as man always does for a variety of engineering and "economic" interests that are apparently beyond the grasp of biology types. As to physical laws, since He made them, defined them and put them into operation His creation should and would be consistent with them otherwise they wouldn't work, live etc. ... that's common sense .. something evos don't have or appreciate.

Immutable: Unchangeable, but really do you really think an atheist god-hater has any possible knowlege to pass on about such matters ....please.

Every so called bad design argument has been dealt with by people with more expertise than I no need to rehearse. I have posted a devastating critique of the so called mammalian eye's bad design on this forum... learn to read.

How about that 100% reversal by your evo club on the bird dinosaur lineage... guffaw  ... another icon of forty years down the toilet.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:42   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 11 2005,15:19)
CGT, First God planned, then He acted in agreement with His plan because otherwise He would be imperfect in His planning and not God, He would therefore in acting sequentially He created using common design elements as man always does for a variety of engineering and "economic" interests that are apparently beyond the grasp of biology types. As to physical laws, since He made them, defined them and put them into operation His creation should and would be consistent with them otherwise they wouldn't work, live etc. ... that's common sense .. something evos don't have or appreciate.

Immutable: Unchangeable, but really do you really think an atheist god-hater has any possible knowlege to pass on about such matters ....please.

Every so called bad design argument has been dealt with by people with more expertise than I no need to rehearse. I have posted a devastating critique of the so called mammalian eye's bad design on this forum... learn to read.

How about that 100% reversal by your evo club on the bird dinosaur lineage... guffaw  ... another icon of forty years down the toilet.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

Your nasty comments on the religious beliefs of scientists are not only inappropriate, but wrong as well.  Many evolutionists are Christians or believers in other religions, and as has been pointed out, it is only a minor sect of Christianity that has a problem with evolution.  And it is localized mainly in one particular country, which makes Dawkins’ meme idea seem very apropos.  

You really do need to rehearse, as your performances on this board obviously need considerable rehearsal before they are meaningful.  I might also suggest that better punctuation might make your posts more comprehensible.  I know you mock the proper use of language, but language is a communication tool, and the easier it is to comprehend someone’s writings, the better the tool is being used.

Individual bad design arguments may come and go, but the point is still valid, and none of your posts have negated the basic principle of such points.  As has been pointed out, scientists make mistakes and discover new things – that is science.  Yet another reason why ID is not science, but religion.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:37   

See more civility really great. If all theories were constantly permitted to take liberties such as evolution does progress would grind to a halt.

1) Macro evolution is assumed and never demonstrated because its impossible to do so ... but that's solid science.

2) There are no or pitifully few transitional forms where even Darwin said there would be billions .. just time to find them was required... never ever found  period. But its ok we'll find them someday.

3) Every conflict no matter how impactful is accommodated and not taken as a fault or a possible line of falsification.. why.. because evolution is a proven fact beyond dispute.. no matter what.  That is not science.

4) Evolution demands life from non-life by chance ... but cannot demonstrate it,,, cannot even make it plausible and now denies its a logical imperative... thats not science.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:32   

Evopeach

1) Ma = Mm + Mm + Mm +Mm + Mm +...
where Ma represents macroevolution and Mm represents microevolution.

2) All forms are transitional as no offspring is identical to a parent (save for a clone)

3) As new discoveries are made, a theory is developed, modified or discarded. Rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian deposits would be a problem for evolutionary theory.

4) Evolution begins after abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a separate problem. Robert Shapiro thinks more work needs to be done and present theories are weak. He is not, however, a creationist, and believes that good science can address the problem.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:08   

Foxy,

Gee then with all those billions of MA's for every one of the billion species there should be 10**18 transitional fossils clearly illlustrating all the nearly continuous changes say from a land mamal to a whale or from the first replicator to the jelly fish.

I would imagine you would like any any any fossil in the period from abiogenesis to the pre-cambrian somewhere close to an invertbrate since there are absolutely none.

Rediculous!!

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,06:35   

Please call me Alan

Jellyfish have a hard time being discovered as fossils. They are eaten, when they die they decay, there are no hard parts such as bone to fossilise. Most fossils that do exist remain undiscovered, still buried in undisturbed strata. I find it amazing that so much fossil evidence has been discovered.

Not nearly continuous, really continuous. All living organisms on Earth have descended with modification via viable antecedents from a common ancestor. Well that's the theory. I feel that you disagree. Would you have an alternative theory to propose, or are you just in denial about evolution?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,08:24   

After reading a few of evopeach's posts here, I wonder why anyone bothers responding to his posts. It basically has the effect of seriously degrading the S/N ratio of the discussion.

I've had some experience attempting to have a constructive debate with these guys who make ludicrous claims like there's a complete absence of transitional forms, there's absolutely no evidence for evolution, there are no examples of sub-optimal design, etc. etc. etc. Presenting them with evidence of their errors makes no impression; they either ignore your evidence, claim you don't understand the debate, change the subject, or just call you names.

It's entertaining for a while, but then it starts to get tedious.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,08:46   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2005,13:24)
After reading a few of evopeach's posts here, I wonder why anyone bothers responding to his posts. It basically has the effect of seriously degrading the S/N ratio of the discussion.

I've had some experience attempting to have a constructive debate with these guys who make ludicrous claims like there's a complete absence of transitional forms, there's absolutely no evidence for evolution, there are no examples of sub-optimal design, etc. etc. etc. Presenting them with evidence of their errors makes no impression; they either ignore your evidence, claim you don't understand the debate, change the subject, or just call you names.

It's entertaining for a while, but then it starts to get tedious.

I agree with you.  I only do this for the entertainment value.  When I get bored, I drop it until it's entertaining again.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,08:49   

Eric,

I've had experience with these guys who claim to show solid evidence of transitional fossils, common decent, macro evolution, abiogenesis and supposed answers to the myriad of extraordinary mathmatical calculations that have been done in great detail by more evos than by IDers or YEC.

1) I can read books like Duane Gish Phd in Microbiology two books in fact on all the so called transitional fossil record, macro evolution, etc. and also Mike Denton's book, same sort of background and an MD as well.

2) I can read Shapiro, Hoyle,Crick and all the others who having exhausted all possibility of explaining abiogenesis, which if it did not occur means evolution did not happen period in the sense you present it,  now ascribe to science fiction and cultic religious paradigms... that's desperation.

I have no more time to waste with this group of brainwashed true believers.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,09:53   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 12 2005,13:49)
Eric,

...

I have no more time to waste with this group of brainwashed true believers.


Somehow, evopeach, I don't think this is going to be your last post.

But in any event, given your ignorance of even the most obvious facts in general science, your opinions on any aspect of evolution are pretty suspect, to put it mildly.

It's easy to say you've read all the critiques of ID. It's another thing entirely to explain why they're all wrong. That's a challenge I'm convinced you're simply not up to.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,10:16   

Quote
EvoPooch wrote: It's easy to say you've read all the critiques of ID. It's another thing entirely to explain why they're all wrong. That's a challenge I'm convinced you're simply not up to.
Fortunately, it's really up to the creationists (1) to explain why virtually every working biologist is wrong about evolution, and (2) to explain why ID - or any other brand of creationism - is a viable challenge. So far, they've failed utterly.

BTW, Poochy, Gish's PhD is in biochemistry, not microbiology.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:25   

Russell:

I think you may have misinterpreted my post, which was directed to evopeach. I agree with you completely that it's up to ID apologists like evopeach to explain why virtually the entire scientific community is wrong in thinking the new synthesis of neodarwinian evolution and genetics is up to the task of explaining the evolution of life. So far they've failed spectacularly to do so. Generally their response to critiques of ID is, "yeah, I've read that, and it's crap."

There's this one guy on telic thoughts who does that. I gave him 5,000 words (with extensive references) on why IC, CSI, and the EF have all been thoroughly discredited as  supporting a design inference. His response: "Your arguments weren't any good."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:35   

Quote
I think you may have misinterpreted my post
Of course, you're right.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,07:48   

To all of you true believers: The 400 scientists who plus many  more IDers and Creationists are not all idiots, incompetents publicly reounce neo-darwinina evolutionary mecnanisma period.. There is a body of literature from Denton to present day written by credible people who dispute macroevolution very credibly.

I aways thught science was experimentally based and evidentiary in nature. Yet by definition nothing in abiogenesis is repeatable, nothing in the common decent theory is experimentally reproducable and macroevolution has never been observed because by definition it takes eons to occur.

Evolution other than micro which is usually trivial and increasingly explanable by built-in adaptive genetic machinery (turns out so-called junk DNA, leftovers from evolution, is actually in many cases useful and active and important), micro RNA, etc. Evolution fits none of the historic criteria for real science.

It is "Science by Inference" not by objective evidence.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,08:03   

evopeach,

Is plate tectonics "not science" because it can't be observed, can't be duplicated, and isn't experimentally reproducible?

You seem to think that astrophysics is science. Can primoridal nucleosynthesis be reproduced in the lab? Can we observe the first three minutes of the existence of the universe in the lab? How do we know hydrogen and helium were created in the first few minutes after the big bang? No one was there to witness it.

As it happens, evopeach, evolutionary biology uses the same techniques any historical science, like geology or cosmology, uses to draw inferences about the past from evidence available in the present. These kinds of arguments are so utterly vacuous it's simply breathtaking that ID apologists like yourself continue to use them.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:16   

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....s.shtml

This reference states the fact that plate tectonic movements and speeds and tension forces have been measured and the theory varified by these direct measurements currently and thus have no counterpart with unmeasureable macroevolution for instance.

Who says I believe in them any more than macroevolution, common decent etc. they're just discussed because they are the logical imperative for neo-darwian jibberish and point out the fact that there is no logical underpinning for your theory period.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,10:07   

evopeach:

The evidence for neodarwinian evolution is just as compelling, just as logical, and just as irrefutable as the evidence for plate tectonics. The difference is, neodarwinian evolution threatens your worldview in a way plate tectonics doesn't.

Your argument isn't even an argument from incredulity. It's an argument from deliberate blindness.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,11:49   

Aything that has zero empirical, repeatable, demonstrable evidentialry capability is mopdern mythology and does not meet scientific credibility. In addition it is founded on a wild unwarranted, unsubstantitated basis of abiogenesis which is mathmatically indistinguishable from impossibility.

Tectonics has been measured, it is known to be going on now, it is measureable and demonstratble now , it can be simulated in a primal sense now, it passes the test for scientific investigation. The tools of the trade are seismic, accelerometry, presure sensors etc. not bone fragments and teeth or unsettled assumptions.

Your logic is based on purposed ignorance.

  
  75 replies since Mar. 30 2005,01:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]