Convergent Evolution - Reasonable conclusion? or convenient excuse?

quote:

---

Hmm...you see this as evidence for evolution. I see this as those who wish to deny the existence or involvement of God* devising the most reasonable naturalistic explanation to explain His creation. Not at all unlikely.

​

*And because I know it's coming - no I'm not implying all evolutionists are atheists.

---

Why wouldn't your god be more specific and obvious and "intelligent" in his design so that it didn't look exactly like what we'd expect from evolution without an overseer? Why so kludgey?If you see convergent evolution as evidence of creation, how do you imagine things would look different if there was no "intelligent designer"?If you were wrong about there being a designer would you want to know? And, what, if any, evidence could convince you?I don't want to deny an existence of a god anymore than I want to deny the idea that intelligent aliens from another planet seeded life on earth, but there just is no evidence for anyone to insert such notions into the equation. They don't further understanding and may send people off in the wrong direction confirming their biases.Why would someone want to deny the evidence of god if there was actual evidence for god? And does the expertise of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller have no credence in your brand of faith? Do you think they are being fooled while you have accesses some divine "higher truth"? (Are you a YEC?)

quote:

---

Kludgey? Care to give an example of kludgey? YEC does expect some degree of 'kludgeyness' as a result of decay in the genome since creation - but this type of kludgeyness should be as a result of degredation - not as a result of natural selection's imperfect means of assembling functions.

---

http://onegoodmove.org/...ve/2010/06/richard_dawkins_21.html

quote:

---

As previously stated, if there were no common designer then we could expect to see little to no similarity between organisms. Each would have different "building blocks" - they wouldn't share common cellular structure, DNA, etc.

---

Yes, but why does an elephant look more like a mammoth than a pig? Why can every school child tell that a cat is more related to a lion then it is to a dog? When did such critters last share a common ancestor? Why psueudogenes that worked in primitive ancestors but not in current owners? Why ERV's? Etc. Or is that all part of god's unexplained mystery to you --stuff that can't be known?

quote:

---

At this point I am doubtful that scientific evidence alone could convince me of the lack of a designer - I am convinced by the spiritual evidence. However, scientific evidence could convince me that the designer used darwinian evolution as a method for populating life on the planet. As to what form that evidence would take - I am uncertain - I honestly haven't given it much thought.

---

Obviously. I think creationists are even afraid to consider they might be wrong; whereas, science is all about trying to prove a theory wrong, because that is the best way to find out what is right. If you don't know what you'd expect find in an evolved world versus what you'd expect to find in a world specially created 6000 years ago, how do you have any possible way of evaluating one claim over the other? The former has confirming evidence in every major scientific field. The latter has an old book of supposed divine truths that are often contradictory and don't serve to further ANY scientific understanding of anything.How do you know you are not being fooled the same way these people are being fooled? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y , and would you want to know if you were?
To me your beliefs are as sincere but as delusional as theirs and you have left yourself no means of discovering this. Moreover, these beliefs prevent you from understanding the facts. I think it's too late to try to talk logically with some people. Some people become "addicted" to their delusions.