Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8950 total)
33 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,177 Year: 22,213/19,786 Month: 776/1,834 Week: 276/500 Day: 39/65 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 496 of 527 (599923)
01-11-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 3:36 PM


A program designed by intelligent people.

Nowhere in the program did it detail the design of the antenna. Try again.

This designs nothing. This builds nothing.

You have been taught about the birds and the bees, haven't you?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:36 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6887
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 497 of 527 (599924)
01-11-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:27 PM


Your ignorance is showing
You have made claims that you are well versed in the TOE. We have known from your comments that this is not true. Now you show your total ignorance in even basic understanding of science. Here is a basic primer for you. I know you can read, but are you willing to try to understand?

quote:
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

* Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
* Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
* Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
* Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
* Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
* In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.

Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.



Source
Your most important take away from this is, theories do not grow up and become laws. A law and a theory are totally different things, but both are based on observable facts.

As I said before, maybe you should quit posting until you learn a few things.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 498 of 527 (599926)
01-11-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 3:33 PM


ICdesign writes:

Yes, but when you are talking about the development of existence you have to start at the beginning of that existence do you not.


For evolution, it matters little how life came about, it only matters that there is life.

No, gravity is not a theory, its a fact.

To be more accurate, it is, like evolution, both a fact and a theory. Notice how the first chapter is "History of gravitational theory". That's because within science, gravity (the explanation for why two masses seem to attract one another) is considered a theory.

Micro- Evolution is based on observed science.
Macro-Evolution is nothing more that a theory (an unproven guess)

Macro-evolution is a logical consequence of micro evolution. If you keep changing one small thing at a time (micro-evolution) is it not inevitable that eventually you end up with something completely different (macro-evolution)?

For example, if I take the word Supercalifragilistic, and I keep changing one letter at a time, will I not eventually get a completely different word, be it nonsensical or not? (let's leave the selection process out for now)

And this is one of your contradictions that I still haven't figured out. You claim their are no incomplete systems because an organism cannot survive with an incomplete system, correct?

Yes. To be more accurate, if an incomplete system should be the result, the organism would likely not survive, and thus not pass on that incomplete system.

Yet there would have to be many incomplete stages between the first step and a complete system, correct?

No, every step would have to be a "complete system" of its own, not the same "complete system" that you "end up with", but a complete system nonetheless.

ie; "we don't live long enough to observe an entire new system form."
Where is this system all this time?

non-existent. The "intermediate systems" are variations of the system that came before it. i.e. A system with one hard spot, then two, then tree, then four... which eventually becomes one harder long bit, then a bit bigger harder long bit... which then sprouts a second longer hard bit extending from the first longer hard bit, a third one... then a somewhat softer bit where two hard bits are joined (making it flexible), then some tissue to better control the now flexible part. Hey presto, you've got yourself a primitive joint.

That's how evolution works, small steps, all of them complete systems, but the beginning system (an organism with one hard spot), nothing like the end (an organism with a primitive joint).

Anything not clear in this example?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:33 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM Huntard has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 499 of 527 (599933)
01-11-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 3:33 PM


Yes, but when you are talking about the development of existence you have to start at the beginning of that existence do you not.

That sentence was too meaningless to attain the dignity of being wrong.

No, gravity is not a theory, its a fact. The reasons of how it exists is the part that is a theory.

Wrong. Did it never occur to you to find out what the theory of gravity is before you started pontificating on it in public?

Micro- Evolution is based on observed science.
Macro-Evolution is nothing more that a theory (an unproven guess)

You remember how I suggested that you should find out what the word theory means before using it again?

Well, this is why. It makes you look like an ignorant buffoon. Of course, it is possible that the is the effect you're aiming for.

And this is one of your contradictions that I still haven't figured out. You claim their are no incomplete systems because an organism cannot survive with an incomplete system, correct? Yet there would have to be many incomplete stages between the first step and a complete system, correct?

Incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:33 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 500 of 527 (599939)
01-11-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 3:33 PM


Yes, but when you are talking about the development of existence you have to start at the beginning of that existence do you not. That is why I include it.

We are not talking about the development of existence. We are talking about the production of biodiversity.

No, gravity is not a theory, its a fact.

Gravity is both a theory and a fact, just like evolution. There are the facts of gravity for which the theory of gravity is the explanation. We observe that masses are attracted to one another which is the fact. We use the theory of gravity (of which there are two) to explain why masses are attracted to each other.

In the same way, we observe that life changes through time and shares a common ancestor. This is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why this occurred, which is through the mechanisms of evolution.

Micro- Evolution is based on observed science.
Macro-Evolution is nothing more that a theory (an unproven guess)

Theory is as high as it gets in science.

You claim their are no incomplete systems because an organism cannot survive with an incomplete system, correct?

There is no such thing as an incomplete system just as there is no such thing as an incomplete mountain range or an incomplete canyon. Biology, like geology, is in constant flux.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 3:33 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3139 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 501 of 527 (599965)
01-11-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Huntard
01-11-2011 3:57 PM


Huntard writes:

Anything not clear in this example?


With all due respect mate. This explanation of how extremely complex systems could evolve is just foolishness, plain and simple. Hard spots multiplying, becoming longer and so forth? This is like saying two plus two equals 520 to the 4th power.

First of all, we would see the evidence of this process throughout the fossil record and we see no such thing. There are no series of unexplainable "hard spots" found in creatures.
Second of all, any system such as the first circulatory system has to be complete with the pipelines to every location, the heart fully developed and so-forth. I have brought all this up in great detail in the past and the lame answer comes back that this all developed at the same time. Even if that were possible (which it isn't) you have the catch 22 problem. The complete system would have taken eons of time to develop. How could life be possible during this time?

The ToE model is so riddled with all these types of insurmountable problems the list is practically endless.

Honestly though, I am just so tired of arguing about such a no-brainer, I need to move on to more fruitful endeavors. You guys (evolutionists) have built such a maze of smoke and mirrors there is just no way you will ever be capable of seeing the simple truth shy of the Holy Spirit opening your eyes.

I said before how the truth is so simple a child can see it. Not the details of the truth but the bottom line of the truth is really so very simple.... God did it.

May you someday know that for yourself.
That is my prayer for you,

ICdesign


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Huntard, posted 01-11-2011 3:57 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 6:57 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 503 by Panda, posted 01-11-2011 7:36 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 504 by jar, posted 01-11-2011 8:09 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 505 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2011 8:55 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 508 by Huntard, posted 01-12-2011 3:28 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 510 by Taq, posted 01-12-2011 11:56 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 523 by Dr Jack, posted 01-14-2011 6:46 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6887
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 502 of 527 (599970)
01-11-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 6:40 PM


Case closed
ICDesign or Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up writes:

God did it

No sense continuing this discussion, is there?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2054 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 503 of 527 (599977)
01-11-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 6:40 PM


ICdesign writes:

God did it.


Yes.
Allah made all life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 504 of 527 (599981)
01-11-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 6:40 PM


How did God do it?
ICdesign writes:

Not the details of the truth but the bottom line of the truth is really so very simple.... God did it.

How did God do it? It is the details that Science is examining.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 505 of 527 (599993)
01-11-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 6:40 PM


First of all, we would see the evidence of this process throughout the fossil record and we see no such thing. There are no series of unexplainable "hard spots" found in creatures.

Why would they be "unexplainable"? Evolution of skeletons would be the explanation, and we see those elements in the evolution of the lower chordates, for whom fossils are quite abundant.

We don't see those hard spots in living creatures now because that evolution already happened. Organisms already have skeletons. Why would they evolve again?

Second of all, any system such as the first circulatory system has to be complete with the pipelines to every location, the heart fully developed and so-forth.

Well, no, it doesn't. For instance insects have an open circulatory system with no vessels ("pipelines") at all, just a blood/lymph substance that sloshes over body tissues and is circulated by an open heart. The next step up from that is a small number of vessels to direct blood out of the heart to the lungs and then out of the lungs into the body cavity, which we see in a number of organisms; then a semi-closed circulatory system where fresh and stale blood is allowed to mix within the heart, like birds have; then finally a fully closed system that segregates stale blood going to the lungs from fresh blood headed out to the body.

How could life be possible during this time?

Most of the life on Earth has no circulatory system at all, and you're asking us how life could be possible with a simpler form of heart? Jesus, your ignorance is truly unsurpassed. Why don't you ask a tree how it can survive without a heart? Why don't you ask a bacteria how it can survive with no blood or blood vessels?

I said before how the truth is so simple a child can see it.

You certainly evince all of the intellectual maturity and biological knowledge of a child. But biology is complicated and it needs to be done by adults.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2011 2:23 AM crashfrog has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 506 of 527 (600049)
01-12-2011 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by crashfrog
01-11-2011 8:55 PM


living transitional skeletons
crashfrog writes:

We don't see those hard spots in living creatures now because that evolution already happened. Organisms already have skeletons. Why would they evolve again?

eek, that's a clearly false notion of evolution. evolution is not directed, nor does it forbid convergence, nor does it necessitate that once an adaptation is successful that it be adopted across lineages -- no, it actually predicts that won't happen. that would be a good sign of intelligent design.

in any case, here are some living animals with various states of "hard spots" on the way to having a bony skeleton.


amphioxus, somewhat basal chordate. spinal column, somewhat rigid.


lamprey, jawless fish. cartilaginous skeleton, no bones.


shark, jawed fish. bony jaw, cartilaginous skeleton.

these are, of course, somewhat representative of the fossil record.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2011 8:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2011 2:07 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 520 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2011 11:45 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19108
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 507 of 527 (600052)
01-12-2011 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:27 PM


ICdesign writes:

Oh, you mean those antennae that were intelligently designed? You mean those ID antennae that were then intelligently written into the intelligently designed computer program on the intelligently designed computer? You mean those antennas? Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, very evolutionary.

Remember, evolution is not about how life began. Evolution is about how one species evolves into another, and at a more detailed level is about how populations change over time. Therefore, doing design using a simulated model of evolution has to have a population of somethings evolving over time.

This is what all design programs do that use genetic algorithms (models of the evolutionary process). They begin with a population of somethings, usually the best that humans can achieve. They then assess their goodness according to some criteria (analog of natural selection), and next choose the best to "mate" by combining parameters while making minor random modifications to them (analog of descent with modification). They then repeat this process through many generations, and the result is a better something than humans could achieve.

Genetic algorithms make improvements one little step at a time, just like evolution. They choose the best from each generation to contribute to the next, just like evolution. And they make minor random changes in each generation, just like evolution. Genetic algorithms are an illustration of the ability of evolution to produce innovations.

You keep making the mistake of thinking evolution is directed when it is not. There is no goal in evolution. Natural processes have no way of knowing which random mutations will work out and which won't, but natural selection working through the pressures imposed by the environment makes these decisions. Environments change, and what was useful in one environment (e.g., thick fur in cold climes) could be a severe disadvantage in others (thick fur in hot climes).

Structures can even change function. To create an analogy to nature using our antennae example, perhaps prior to becoming an antennae species it was an earring tree species, but then the "environment" changed and the incipient antennae capability of the earring tree provided an advantage, and over the generations its performance as an antennae was fine-tuned and the earring tree function lost or much diminished.

How do you assess performance without using intelligence again?

Assessing performance of antennae requires intelligence, and in the genetic algorithm the assessment and choosing of the best is the analog of natural selection.

Show me where life was created from nothing...

This thread isn't about the origin of life.

...and then show me where complex systems have developed by themselves.

If you mean that we should literally show you evolution that took millions of years then of course we can't do that. We can't show you an electron, either. What we can do is what we have done, which is explain how the evolutionary process produces innovation and complexity through tiny changes whose effects are assessed with the best changes making it to the next generation.

If this had been observed evolution would not be called a theory.

Evolution has been observed. Breeders observed evolution thousands of years before Darwin, with "breeder selection" replacing natural selection. Every reproductive event is another example of evolution, since the mating parties obviously survived to reproduce (natural selection), and the offspring include mutations that make it in tiny ways unlike either parent (descent with modification).

Percy writes:

If the watering hole on the savanna didn't exist then the animals using the watering hole wouldn't exist, either


And? ......What about the hole with water that is never used by an animal?

I don't know, you tell me, since things being created with "objective purpose" is your idea, not mine. What I said was that since you claimed that a heart has "objective purpose" because if it didn't exist then the person wouldn't exist, therefore a watering hole has "objective purpose" because if it didn't exist then the animals using it wouldn't exist either, the point being that you were wrong to say the watering hole only had "subjective purpose", and further that this was because you hadn't really thought through your criteria for determining "objective purpose" and were just making things up as you went along.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 508 of 527 (600053)
01-12-2011 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 6:40 PM


ICdesign writes:

With all due respect mate.


Of course mate, respect should always be the basis of conversation.

This explanation of how extremely complex systems could evolve is just foolishness, plain and simple. Hard spots multiplying, becoming longer and so forth? This is like saying two plus two equals 520 to the 4th power.

Think of it more like 1+1+1+1+1+1...etc. becoming 520 to the 4th power. Yes, that will take a while, but that's what it takes.

First of all, we would see the evidence of this process throughout the fossil record and we see no such thing.

First of all, that was an example to illustrate how the process works. It wasn't meant as a litteral representation of what happened. Still, I think we will find animals in the fossil record with less hard spots, and a bit later on, with more hard spots. Heck, we probably see some alive today (sharks come to mind, big hard jaw, soft skeleton).

There are no series of unexplainable "hard spots" found in creatures.

Quite, they're all explainable.

Second of all, any system such as the first circulatory system has to be complete with the pipelines to every location, the heart fully developed and so-forth.

No, it doesn't. Simply because the creature does not require such a thing. It could be possible it uses some muscles to circulate the "blood" to a part of the body it needs it. Remember, these creatures are still very small, they do not require the big circulatory system we do.

I have brought all this up in great detail in the past and the lame answer comes back that this all developed at the same time.

I don't know about the "great detail", you have certainly said the same thing in the past, yes. And the answer will be the same now, it all developped at the same time. That is to say, with gradual steps that provided ever better "hearts" ever better "veins" and ever better "blood".

Even if that were possible (which it isn't) you have the catch 22 problem.

Why isn't it possible?

The complete system would have taken eons of time to develop. How could life be possible during this time?

Because life at that time did not need the system we see now. Just like in my example, the first creature didn't need the primitive joint to survive, but that single hard spot gave it an advantage. Then one of its descendants had a mutation that created another hard spot, which gave it even more advantage, and so on, until we arrive at our primitive joint.

The ToE model is so riddled with all these types of insurmountable problems the list is practically endless.

What problems?

Honestly though, I am just so tired of arguing about such a no-brainer, I need to move on to more fruitful endeavors.

But it isn't a no-brainer. I really do not see what problems there are, help me understand them. You keep saying there are problems, but everything you bring up isn't a problem really.

You guys (evolutionists) have built such a maze of smoke and mirrors there is just no way you will ever be capable of seeing the simple truth shy of the Holy Spirit opening your eyes.

And like we told you, there are many people who have had the "holy spirit open theior eyes", those that believe in god, that also accept evolution. It really is not a matter of whether or not one is religious or not. Hell, on this thread alone there were 3 or 4 people that believe in god telling you that they also accept evolution. Are they lying about one of those things?

I said before how the truth is so simple a child can see it. Not the details of the truth but the bottom line of the truth is really so very simple.... God did it.

Even if god did it, the method he chose is evolution.

May you someday know that for yourself.
That is my prayer for you,

ICdesign


And may you someday see that there are no problems with evolution, and that believing in god and accepting evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Peace mate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 509 of 527 (600065)
01-12-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 2:27 PM


If this had been observed evolution would not be called a theory.

Do you know what a theory is?

Gravity, Plate tectonics, the Periodic Law, Oxidation-reduction and Heliocentrism are all theories. A theory is the best explanation for the data available and can change when newer better data is found. All of the above theories have been modified since their inception. The same with evolution.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 2:27 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 510 of 527 (600088)
01-12-2011 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by ICdesign
01-11-2011 6:40 PM


This explanation of how extremely complex systems could evolve is just foolishness, plain and simple.

Based on what evidence?

First of all, we would see the evidence of this process throughout the fossil record and we see no such thing.

What evidence are you looking for? Be specific.

Second of all, any system such as the first circulatory system has to be complete with the pipelines to every location, the heart fully developed and so-forth.

However, the pipelines can have function without a heart as others have pointed out. On top of that, an ineffecient cirulatory system can be supported by simple diffusion across the skin as seen in many organisms. A heart would just improve the system, and therefore be selected for.

It is examples like this which make your claims irrelevant. You simply know too little about biology to make judgements of what is silly and what is not. A Zoology 101 course would do wonders.

You guys (evolutionists) have built such a maze of smoke and mirrors there is just no way you will ever be capable of seeing the simple truth shy of the Holy Spirit opening your eyes.

So says the guy who proposes magical poofing.

I said before how the truth is so simple a child can see it.

Sadly, you have the understanding of a child. You need to grow up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by ICdesign, posted 01-11-2011 6:40 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019