[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent Design Is Obvious

[JM]

Yes.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’ The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone. Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

 

[cubedbee]

Yes.

No.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’

Please list the presuppositions that force the evolutionist to exlaim something which both you, I, and he knows is false?

The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone.

Yeah, that's what a real evolutionist would say too.

Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

This shows that the creationist is true to character and showing his ignorance. Evolution is not random. And the level or complication neither says anything about whether it evolved or whether it was created.

 

[Vanaka]

Yes.

No.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’

Please list the presuppositions that force the evolutionist to exlaim something which both you, I, and he knows is false?

[quote:09521]The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone.

Yeah, that's what a real evolutionist would say too.

Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

This shows that the creationist is true to character and showing his ignorance. Evolution is not random. And the level or complication neither says anything about whether it evolved or whether it was created.[/quote:09521]


ok what is it?,do you even understand your own theory,with its loops and fruads it has?
and not a person who was probably tuaght this in school?

 

[Heidi]

Yes.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’ The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone. Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

Good point. Scientists are so eager to prove there is no God that they overlook a myriad of variables for the fossils they find and then make premature claims about them. And that's why they change their minds so often. :wink:

 

[Loren Michael]

Yes.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’ The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone. Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

if watches were alive and could somehow interbreed (the mind boggles!), i would be making a serious case for the viability of the evolution of the watch. until then, it's a dead analogy. :

 

[Vanaka]

Yes.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’ The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone. Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

if watches were alive and could somehow interbreed (the mind boggles!), i would be making a serious case for the viability of the evolution of the watch. until then, it's a dead analogy. :

: I bet you dont even know how DNA much less natural selection(REAL natural selection mind you) works :

 

[Loren Michael]

Yes.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’ The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone. Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

if watches were alive and could somehow interbreed (the mind boggles!), i would be making a serious case for the viability of the evolution of the watch. until then, it's a dead analogy. :

: I bet you dont even know how DNA much less natural selection(REAL natural selection mind you) works :

"REAL" natural selection? you mean, none of that fake tripe that they sell you at the corner store? :-?

i'm no biology major, but i know more than enough to see an irrelevant, nonsensical argument when i see one. that's all this discussion requires. we're not talking about the minutia of DNA, and as the first post in the thread shows, we're not even talking about natural selection. i do appreciate your questioning of my credientials though. tell me, what do you know of DNA and this "real" natural selection?

wait... no... don't. not unless you can tell me about what they have to do with a watch on a beach.

 

[Barbarian]

I bet you dont even know how DNA much less natural selection(REAL natural selection mind you) works

I, too would like to hear what you think it is.

 

[Vanaka]

[quote="Loren Michael":09ead]

Yes.

Imagine walking onto a beach you believe has never been inhabited and finding a watch. The evolutionist exclaims (because his presuppositions force him to), ‘Wow, look at this wonderful example of evolution! After thousands, no millions of years this watch has evolved from a lower form into this wonderful watch.’ The Christian walks up and says, ‘That didn’t evolve, it was placed here or left here by someone. Can’t you see the detail; the inner workings are far too complicated to be the random act of evolution.’

if watches were alive and could somehow interbreed (the mind boggles!), i would be making a serious case for the viability of the evolution of the watch. until then, it's a dead analogy. :

: I bet you dont even know how DNA much less natural selection(REAL natural selection mind you) works :

"REAL" natural selection? you mean, none of that fake tripe that they sell you at the corner store? :-?

i'm no biology major, but i know more than enough to see an irrelevant, nonsensical argument when i see one. that's all this discussion requires. we're not talking about the minutia of DNA, and as the first post in the thread shows, we're not even talking about natural selection. i do appreciate your questioning of my credientials though. tell me, what do you know of DNA and this "real" natural selection?

wait... no... don't. not unless you can tell me about what they have to do with a watch on a beach. [/quote:09ead]


sorry to dissapoint you,but this is not only relevant but scientific,
many Evolutionsists have the misconseption that us creationists dont have science,and if you say there is no connection then explain how many of the worlds greatest minds and scientists were christian.


anyhow,



ok heres how natural selection works:




two dogs get "marryied" and have kids

the parents gene code is(simplified)


male:aB Ab aB female:Ab aB Ab


on pup has long hair his gene code is:

pup 1:AB AB AB


now..what do you think he will produce?

long haired pups.


as you can see,genes are lost rather then gained



so you see you can say it is another "breed" of penguin,but with less
genes,not more.


and in case you shout"oh!what about mutation!?'


I dont deny that mutations happen,how do you think viruses and stuff become immune to our medicene?

but mutation or not we still lose genes,allow me to use why family members are not alowed or suggusted to marry eachother:


for instance

one of your nose genes mutated,(and your relative you're marrying is likly to have that mutation as well)

so you marry your relitive,and you have a child,now,those to mutated genes come together and enforce each other,your child has a deformed nose....(he's still human BTW)

now if you marry someone outside of your family

they will probably have a good gene

that will probably stop the mutation overall and all your child will have is a crooked nose.

you see mutation does not make better,

another example would be:

they put some fruit flys under radiation causeing mutations in their reproduction,some of the things that will happen will be:

fruit flys with crumpled wings,
fruit flys with no wings,
and ect,

notice the fruit flys did not get better,and are still fruit flys

another thing to note is that mutation is not creation of new genes,but rather the corruption of old ones.

and if you know what corruption means you know(or atleast I hope so)
that is not a good thing.



sorry to disapoint you by being relevent

 

[Quid]

another thing to note is that mutation is not creation of new genes,but rather the corruption of old ones.

I showed this to you last time you said something like this but you conveniently ignored it it seems. New information can appear. It's called insertion. If you like, I can also give the list of things that cause it as it's been observed and proven fact. I'll also be happy to provide sites for any and all of that if you need them.

 

[Loren Michael]

sorry to disapoint you by being relevent

relevant? you explained nothing of clocks found on beaches in there.

this is not relevant. what does dogs being "marryied" have anything to do with a clock on a beach?

all i ask of you is to tell me how the story of the clock on the beach is in any way analogous to evolution.

 

[Heidi]

another thing to note is that mutation is not creation of new genes,but rather the corruption of old ones.

I showed this to you last time you said something like this but you conveniently ignored it it seems. New information can appear. It's called insertion. If you like, I can also give the list of things that cause it as it's been observed and proven fact. I'll also be happy to provide sites for any and all of that if you need them.

Excuse me? Insertion? :o And who inserted these new genes? If insertion happens, then why haven't humans bred offspring with wings? :o And why have no apes bred anything other than apes since the beginning of recorded history when there have been witnesses? Sorry, but inventing pre-recorded history looks more than a little susipicious, particluarly when it contradicts everything that has been recorded. :wink:

 

[Quadeshet]

You're only half right, Vanaka. By your description of the dogs genetics, these combinations are possible:

ab aB Ab AB
ab abab aBab Abab ABab
aB abaB aBaB AbaB ABaB
Ab abAb aBAb AbAb ABAb
AB abAB aBAB AbAB ABAB <--- here's your puppy

Nobody lost genes, it's all about the way they are combined.

So, the chance of your heterozygous long-haired parents producing a homozygous dominant long haired pup is 1/16.

My first question is, what happened to all your pups brothers and sisters? They are still part of the overall dog population, and are contributing their varied genes.

Next question. What happens if your puppy mates with a heterozygous friend? His offspring are then carrying some combination of dominant and recessive genes, right? So his grandpups, depending on who they mate with, have some chance of being born with either short or long hair.

Also, mutation can be beneficial. The example you gave of mutating pathogens is a good one: by mutation a virus can become more virulent (short term benefits) or can pass to a different host species (long term benefits).

But, as you probably know, if a mutation is harmful it decreases the ability of an organism to reproduce, and so it doesn't get passed on. The mutations that do get passed on are usually neutral or beneficial, or are like haemophilia that are dependent on two factors that have a low probability of joining up in the offspring of outbred parents.

Quid already wrote about insertion, so it's up to you to look at the information he linked to. There's some great information in that article.

 

[Heidi]

You're only half right, Vanaka. By your description of the dogs genetics, these combinations are possible:

ab aB Ab AB
ab abab aBab Abab ABab
aB abaB aBaB AbaB ABaB
Ab abAb aBAb AbAb ABAb
AB abAB aBAB AbAB ABAB <--- here's your puppy

Nobody lost genes, it's all about the way they are combined.

So, the chance of your heterozygous long-haired parents producing a homozygous dominant long haired pup is 1/16.

My first question is, what happened to all your pups brothers and sisters? They are still part of the overall dog population, and are contributing their varied genes.

Next question. What happens if your puppy mates with a heterozygous friend? His offspring are then carrying some combination of dominant and recessive genes, right? So his grandpups, depending on who they mate with, have some chance of being born with either short or long hair.

Also, mutation can be beneficial. The example you gave of mutating pathogens is a good one: by mutation a virus can become more virulent (short term benefits) or can pass to a different host species (long term benefits).

But, as you probably know, if a mutation is harmful it decreases the ability of an organism to reproduce, and so it doesn't get passed on. The mutations that do get passed on are usually neutral or beneficial, or are like haemophilia that are dependent on two factors that have a low probability of joining up in the offspring of outbred parents.

Quid already wrote about insertion, so it's up to you to look at the information he linked to. There's some great information in that article.

Ah, you're still only talking about dogs breeding dogs. Where evolutionists become delusional is in thinking that calling a man an ape makes him an ape. Again, apes and men are incapable of interbreeding which is why no human has ever produced an ape as an offspring nor has an ape ever produced a human. So trying to make an apple an orange and an orange an apple can never change the fact that they are different fruits. So I suggest you first study apes to see what they breed, then you'll be able to understand why there are natural sperm barriers between animals and humans.

 

[Quid]

Excuse me? Insertion? :o And who inserted these new genes? If insertion happens, then why haven't humans bred offspring with wings? :o And why have no apes bred anything other than apes since the beginning of recorded history when there have been witnesses? Sorry, but inventing pre-recorded history looks more than a little susipicious, particluarly when it contradicts everything that has been recorded. :wink:

The following are the causes of mutation, including the insertion of new information. This isn't the first time I've shown you this either. I've told you before, mutation of DNA rarely happens in large amounts, hence why there's never any drastic changes but only small ones that accrue to cause larger ones over millions of years.

 

[Quadeshet]

Ah, you're still only talking about dogs breeding dogs. Where evolutionists become delusional is in thinking that calling a man an ape makes him an ape. Again, apes and men are incapable of interbreeding which is why no human has ever produced an ape as an offspring nor has an ape ever produced a human. So trying to make an apple an orange and an orange an apple can never change the fact that they are different fruits. So I suggest you first study apes to see what they breed, then you'll be able to understand why there are natural sperm barriers between animals and humans.

A human is a type of ape. There are many types of apes, and they evolved from a common ancestor. It's really very simple.

 

[Heidi]

Ah, you're still only talking about dogs breeding dogs. Where evolutionists become delusional is in thinking that calling a man an ape makes him an ape. Again, apes and men are incapable of interbreeding which is why no human has ever produced an ape as an offspring nor has an ape ever produced a human. So trying to make an apple an orange and an orange an apple can never change the fact that they are different fruits. So I suggest you first study apes to see what they breed, then you'll be able to understand why there are natural sperm barriers between animals and humans.

A human is a type of ape. There are many types of apes, and they evolved from a common ancestor. It's really very simple.

And where are you buying this hogwash from? You'd believe anything a person with a ph.d says. Calling humans apes no more makes them apes than calling humans vegetables makes us peanuts. Sorry, but you can't turn a human into an animal just by calling him one.

And because scientists believe that calling someone an animal makes him an animal, they forgot that apes and humans cannot interbreed, thus apes cannot be our ancestors no matter what they call us! Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can understand that.

 

[Quid]

And where are you buying this hogwash from? You'd believe anything a person with a ph.d says.

Feel free to show the the bilogical study that shows otherwise. And I don't mean you making up your own seperate definition. It's not just any scientist who classifies Humans as apes, it's damn near all of them.

 

[Vanaka]

You're only half right, Vanaka. By your description of the dogs genetics, these combinations are possible:

ab aB Ab AB
ab abab aBab Abab ABab
aB abaB aBaB AbaB ABaB
Ab abAb aBAb AbAb ABAb
AB abAB aBAB AbAB ABAB <--- here's your puppy

Nobody lost genes, it's all about the way they are combined.

So, the chance of your heterozygous long-haired parents producing a homozygous dominant long haired pup is 1/16.

My first question is, what happened to all your pups brothers and sisters? They are still part of the overall dog population, and are contributing their varied genes.

Next question. What happens if your puppy mates with a heterozygous friend? His offspring are then carrying some combination of dominant and recessive genes, right? So his grandpups, depending on who they mate with, have some chance of being born with either short or long hair.

Also, mutation can be beneficial. The example you gave of mutating pathogens is a good one: by mutation a virus can become more virulent (short term benefits) or can pass to a different host species (long term benefits).

But, as you probably know, if a mutation is harmful it decreases the ability of an organism to reproduce, and so it doesn't get passed on. The mutations that do get passed on are usually neutral or beneficial, or are like haemophilia that are dependent on two factors that have a low probability of joining up in the offspring of outbred parents.

Quid already wrote about insertion, so it's up to you to look at the information he linked to. There's some great information in that article.

Quid already wrote about insertion, so it's up to you to look at the information he linked to. There's some great information in that article.

all that does it claim that mutations happen to be good,I just wasted my time on a piticularly stupid artical...... :x some heads are gonna roll!(JK)

You're only half right, Vanaka. By your description of the dogs genetics, these combinations are possible:

ab aB Ab AB
ab abab aBab Abab ABab
aB abaB aBaB AbaB ABaB
Ab abAb aBAb AbAb ABAb
AB abAB aBAB AbAB ABAB <--- here's your puppy

Nobody lost genes, it's all about the way they are combined.

So, the chance of your heterozygous long-haired parents producing a homozygous dominant long haired pup is 1/16.

ok,If no one lost genes explain how you can't take a poodle and make a wolf(alot of poeple supose thats what the origonal dog looked like),but you can take a wolf and make a poodle(through breeding of course)

BTW if we aren't losing genes,how come red haired poeple and (not some much) blond poeple are so rare?

anyhow I only mentioned one puppy,

also explain how that if puppy "married" and had kids he would produce(probably depending on his mate a bit) long haired pups?

But, as you probably know, if a mutation is harmful it decreases the ability of an organism to reproduce, and so it doesn't get passed on. The mutations that do get passed on are usually neutral or beneficial, or are like haemophilia that are dependent on two factors that have a low probability of joining up in the offspring of outbred parents.

well...there arent any beneficial mutations,lets say..your computer gets a corrupted file....do you say:"oh goody!my compy's(or lappy if you prefer) Evolving!" or do you just delete it?
and really I dont see how a mutated nose gene wouldnt get passed on if a supposed "beneficial" or "neutral" would get passed through.

relevant? you explained nothing of clocks found on beaches in there.

this is not relevant. what does dogs being "marryied" have anything to do with a clock on a beach?

all i ask of you is to tell me how the story of the clock on the beach is in any way analogous to evolution.

well God did give us brains,figure it out.

 

[Quid]

Quid already wrote about insertion, so it's up to you to look at the information he linked to. There's some great information in that article.

all that does it claim that mutations happen to be good,I just wasted my time on a piticularly stupid artical...... :x some heads are gonna roll!(JK)

You mean this link?

The one that shows causes of mutation, that new information can be added, and that mutations aren't always beneficial?