The Argument From Design

[TheAtheistTroll]

God is really just the worlds greatest troll. I mean, making our eyeballs take in information upside down? That's just retardedly good levels trolololing.

[Emanuel]

God is really just the worlds greatest troll. I mean, making our eyeballs take in information upside down? That's just retardedly good levels trolololing.

http://creation.com/is-our-inverted-reti...bad-design
http://godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

[Gawdzilla]

Uncoordinated huh. Without your big toe you would have difficulty walking. Seems like a good design to me I like walking.

Making a virtue out of a flaw won't prove your point. Bipedalism kills women in childbirth, among other issues with that "design".

Would you design a stool with just two legs? (Will not you, Buddha knows what you'd design.) Rather, would a stool designed with two legs make any sense? We're constantly fight gravity, it can take us years to learn how to do that consistently. A Thompson's gazelle is on its feet in minutes after birth, and can run within the hour.

[TheAtheistTroll]

Dawkins doesn't know why the vertebrate retina is designed this way because he doesn't really understand how the eye works.

AHahahahaHAHaHAHAHAhAHa

[Godscreated]

---

I’d like to suggest that you spend a little time learning what science really thinks about evolution instead of depending on your preacher or people from the Discovery Institute. I’d bet that would be a waste of time though because I’m sure others have made similar suggestions to no avail before me. It would be nice though if you had a clue. It might help you formulate an argument that didn’t involve a straw man or simply shouting “You can’t prove it!” over and over again.

---

---

It's all hypothesis, you have no facts about any ancient eyes or if the eye evolved at all, without the actual subjects to study you can have no proof, the same as God, I can not physically show Him to you so I have no proof that you would accept. Just because certain types of eyes exist this in no way means that the eye evolved through any process, there is no proof that a simple type of light sensitive material in a single cell organsim evolved into an eye. I'm not buying this line of reasoning it makes no sence. I guess the next thing I will hear from you will be that a photoelectric cell will evolve into a digital telescope that will be able to see into the center of a black hole. Now do not get me wrong I like science and enjoy scientific discoveries that are factual, I love to see the pictures that Hubble brings us and look forward to the spacecraft going to Jupiter, I think that's the correct planet, to peer through the clouds so we can see what's under them. However when it comes to evolution well there is no evidence that it's true, I do believe that changes can and do happen within a species but not changes so great that a new species evolves. By the way my pastor was a nuclear engineer with TVA before he was called to be a pastor, so you see I do study under a very intelligent man, who by the way will only deal with truth, if there is speculation in anything he teaches he says so and explains it.

---

Just as I suspected, the best you can do is scream “You can’t prove it!” Unfortunately for you, your very intelligent, nuclear engineer preacher with the bad case of belief bias has imparted to you a pathetic understanding of the concepts of facts, evidence and proof. For example: Changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time is a fact. One you could demonstrate to yourself by doing a little flower gardening and crossing two different colors of the same species of flower and observing what the following generations looks like. This very same change of alleles is also evidence of evolution. You might not accept it, but that is likely due in large part to the conformation bias your very intelligent, nuclear engineer preacher is ensuring you don’t leave church without. Finally, the number of confirmed human endogenous retrovirus K insertions in identical chromosomal locations shared by humans and the rest of the primate family proves that you and the monkey at the local zoo are descended from a common ancestor.

Now before you start screaming that “I can’t prove it” or “God did it” there is something I’d like for you to consider. First is that you have already admitted that you can’t prove God exists. Your belief in creationism relies entirely on your faith in the recorded beliefs of people that had an extremely limited understanding of even the most basic principles of science. On the other hand I can prove that viruses exist through the application technology combined with modern scientific method. I can also prove viruses are responsible for horizontal gene transfer to organisms including humans. Finally, I can prove that humans and other primates share multiple identical HERV insertions, and that the distribution of those insertions is consistent with evolution in every way.

I did not scream anything, you need to turn down your hearing aid. I did not say I could not prove God, I said that what I would use you would not accept. Now for your flowers they change colors big deal, let's see if you keep cross pollinating them if we will get a tree or maybe a man eating vine, that would be cool. I bet if you do that for 10,000 generations the best you will do is a rainbow colored flower of the same exact species. Maybe you can show me that stuff but it in no way can prove evolution, there is no evidence ie. facts to prove that any one species has turned into another species. As for my pastor you could only hope to be as smart as he is, now for the one thing that stands out in what he has shown me is this, that the most reliable dating we have shows that the earth is about 50,000 years old. I have no problem with that but you should, because that puts an end to the number of years it would take for evolutionary processes to work. Carbon 14 dating is highly unreliable because you can not know the amount of carbon present during the time of the dinosaur, not even 100,000 years ago, so you have no test samples to go by, we know that carbon does not stay at a consistant level.

---

[/quote]

Uncoordinated huh. Without your big toe you would have difficulty walking. Seems like a good design to me I like walking.

Making a virtue out of a flaw won't prove your point. Bipedalism kills women in childbirth, among other issues with that "design".

Would you design a stool with just two legs? (Will not you, Buddha knows what you'd design.) Rather, would a stool designed with two legs make any sense? We're constantly fight gravity, it can take us years to learn how to do that consistently. A Thompson's gazelle is on its feet in minutes after birth, and can run within the hour.

If a Thompson's gazelle does not get on it's feet and ready to run shortly after birth, shortly after birth it becomes a lion's lunch, there is a need for it to run soon after birth, we do not have that need. I'm not making a virtue out of a flaw, it's a fact without your bigtoe you will have trouble walking, our feet allow us great mobility that a club would never give us. Most childern are walking by eighteen months and for the ones that are not it is usually some kind of handicap that slows down the process of learning to walk, so I do not know where you get years from. By the way the only adults I know that have trouble with gravity are drunks and drugies. What does a two legged stool have to do with anything, to answer your question no I would not build a stool with two legs, I would use three though it's more stable than one with four legs, I build furniture I should know. If you think man would be better off with three or four legs and childern running within a few hours of birth then why did your evolution not do that. I do not know if you have childern but if you do I'm going to guess that your glad they could not run within hours of birth. Now for one last thing go and read the third chapter of Genesis and you will find there a statement made by God that He was going to increase the pain a woman has bareing childern, He said nothing about it being harder on the father that's why kids are not running within the first hours of birth, I think you know who would have to chase them down, I'll give you a hint she will still be in bed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because evolution, like your fictional god, is incapable of making top down design decisions. I thought that would be obvious to anyone drawing breath in the 21st century. The existence of god is something that we may debate, but when you maintain that evolution has not occurred, you embarrass yourself. More importantly, you embarrass me.

---

It bears mentioning that evolution is not a theory, but an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The bolded bit is theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

This is the body of knowledge, and it is open to interpretation. You would have us ignore all of this in favor of a single chapter of middle eastern mystery tradition? I am ashamed that anyone is capable of such abject and deplorable ignorance. There can be no explanation for this behavior save a willful and dishonest misrepresentation of fact.

[popeyespappy]

I did not scream anything, you need to turn down your hearing aid. I did not say I could not prove God, I said that what I would use you would not accept. Now for your flowers they change colors big deal, let's see if you keep cross pollinating them if we will get a tree or maybe a man eating vine, that would be cool. I bet if you do that for 10,000 generations the best you will do is a rainbow colored flower of the same exact species. Maybe you can show me that stuff but it in no way can prove evolution, there is no evidence ie. facts to prove that any one species has turned into another species. As for my pastor you could only hope to be as smart as he is, now for the one thing that stands out in what he has shown me is this, that the most reliable dating we have shows that the earth is about 50,000 years old. I have no problem with that but you should, because that puts an end to the number of years it would take for evolutionary processes to work. Carbon 14 dating is highly unreliable because you can not know the amount of carbon present during the time of the dinosaur, not even 100,000 years ago, so you have no test samples to go by, we know that carbon does not stay at a consistant level.

Poor child, I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the point on the little botany experiment. The most likely reason for your oversight is because your very intelligent nuclear engineer preacher is teaching you how not to use your critical thinking skills. So let me help you out here. The point of the little experiment in gardening was not to prove to you that dogs give birth to cats, because they don’t, but rather so you could demonstrate to yourself that changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time is a fact. Like it or not, these changes over time are evidence of evolution.

Now, if your little rant about carbon-14 radiometric dating is an example of the type of knowledge your very intelligent nuclear engineer preacher is passing to you then I’m afraid he’s not very intelligent at all. To begin with, cardon-14 isn’t used to date dinosaurs. Carbon-14 dating doesn’t work for objects older than 60 to 70 thousand years so other methods are used beyond that range. And yes, scientists are aware that levels of atmospheric Carbon-14 have fluctuated over time. Fortunately they are able to calibrate their results for those changes. The latest calibration curve is called INTCAL09 if you’d care to look into it. Results calibrated using INTCAL09 give an accurate date range for objects up to 50,000 years.

There are numerous other methods of radiometric dating available for really old objects. These methods include uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon and several others. Regardless of what your preacher tells you these are the most reliable methods for dating old objects. They work accurately for objects that are billions of years old and have been used to date terrestrial rocks that are 3 to 4 billion years old. Some examples of those samples have been dated using more than one method of radiometric dating with the same result.

Unfortunately the oldest rocks discovered to date on Earth are less than 4 billion years old. This is due to the fact that most of the Earth’s crust has been recycled via tectonic activity since then. The best estimate for the age of the Earth comes not from terrestrial material but from meteorites found here on Earth. These meteorites coalesced at the same time and from the same accretion disk as the Earth and the rest of the planets. They have been dated at 4.54 billion years old using the Uranium-lead method.

BTW, I couldn’t help but notice that you failed to address the part about ERV’s. I can only assume that’s because you don’t understand it so I drew you a picture. Hope it helps.

[Godscreated]

---

I did not scream anything, you need to turn down your hearing aid. I did not say I could not prove God, I said that what I would use you would not accept. Now for your flowers they change colors big deal, let's see if you keep cross pollinating them if we will get a tree or maybe a man eating vine, that would be cool. I bet if you do that for 10,000 generations the best you will do is a rainbow colored flower of the same exact species. Maybe you can show me that stuff but it in no way can prove evolution, there is no evidence ie. facts to prove that any one species has turned into another species. As for my pastor you could only hope to be as smart as he is, now for the one thing that stands out in what he has shown me is this, that the most reliable dating we have shows that the earth is about 50,000 years old. I have no problem with that but you should, because that puts an end to the number of years it would take for evolutionary processes to work. Carbon 14 dating is highly unreliable because you can not know the amount of carbon present during the time of the dinosaur, not even 100,000 years ago, so you have no test samples to go by, we know that carbon does not stay at a consistant level

---

.

---

Poor child, I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the point on the little botany experiment. The most likely reason for your oversight is because your very intelligent nuclear engineer preacher is teaching you how not to use your critical thinking skills. So let me help you out here. The point of the little experiment in gardening was not to prove to you that dogs give birth to cats, because they don’t, but rather so you could demonstrate to yourself that changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time is a fact. Like it or not, these changes over time are evidence of evolution.

Now, if your little rant about carbon-14 radiometric dating is an example of the type of knowledge your very intelligent nuclear engineer preacher is passing to you then I’m afraid he’s not very intelligent at all. To begin with, cardon-14 isn’t used to date dinosaurs. Carbon-14 dating doesn’t work for objects older than 60 to 70 thousand years so other methods are used beyond that range. And yes, scientists are aware that levels of atmospheric Carbon-14 have fluctuated over time. Fortunately they are able to calibrate their results for those changes. The latest calibration curve is called INTCAL09 if you’d care to look into it. Results calibrated using INTCAL09 give an accurate date range for objects up to 50,000 years.

There are numerous other methods of radiometric dating available for really old objects. These methods include uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon and several others. Regardless of what your preacher tells you these are the most reliable methods for dating old objects. They work accurately for objects that are billions of years old and have been used to date terrestrial rocks that are 3 to 4 billion years old. Some examples of those samples have been dated using more than one method of radiometric dating with the same result.

Unfortunately the oldest rocks discovered to date on Earth are less than 4 billion years old. This is due to the fact that most of the Earth’s crust has been recycled via tectonic activity since then. The best estimate for the age of the Earth comes not from terrestrial material but from meteorites found here on Earth. These meteorites coalesced at the same time and from the same accretion disk as the Earth and the rest of the planets. They have been dated at 4.54 billion years old using the Uranium-lead method.

BTW, I couldn’t help but notice that you failed to address the part about ERV’s. I can only assume that’s because you don’t understand it so I drew you a picture. Hope it helps.

---

I see our 50,000 years are in agreement, beyond that no dating is reliable. Evolution as far as speices change goes has never been observed, I know that there are changes within a speices for adaptation and that has been observed and that is all your little flower experiment points to. We've not had even the slightest sign of any speices evolving to another speices in the last 50,000 years, if evolution was true don't you think we would have evidence that some speices is changing to another. That nice little diagram you sent could be out of date just shortly, because some scientist now believe that the apes may have evolved from humans, they say they have convincing evidence of this, want that be a poke in the side, evolutionist changing the game plan once again, at least creationist have stuck to their guns.

[thebigfudge]

---

I did not scream anything, you need to turn down your hearing aid. I did not say I could not prove God, I said that what I would use you would not accept. Now for your flowers they change colors big deal, let's see if you keep cross pollinating them if we will get a tree or maybe a man eating vine, that would be cool. I bet if you do that for 10,000 generations the best you will do is a rainbow colored flower of the same exact species. Maybe you can show me that stuff but it in no way can prove evolution, there is no evidence ie. facts to prove that any one species has turned into another species. As for my pastor you could only hope to be as smart as he is, now for the one thing that stands out in what he has shown me is this, that the most reliable dating we have shows that the earth is about 50,000 years old. I have no problem with that but you should, because that puts an end to the number of years it would take for evolutionary processes to work. Carbon 14 dating is highly unreliable because you can not know the amount of carbon present during the time of the dinosaur, not even 100,000 years ago, so you have no test samples to go by, we know that carbon does not stay at a consistant level

---

.

---

Poor child, I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the point on the little botany experiment. The most likely reason for your oversight is because your very intelligent nuclear engineer preacher is teaching you how not to use your critical thinking skills. So let me help you out here. The point of the little experiment in gardening was not to prove to you that dogs give birth to cats, because they don’t, but rather so you could demonstrate to yourself that changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time is a fact. Like it or not, these changes over time are evidence of evolution.

Now, if your little rant about carbon-14 radiometric dating is an example of the type of knowledge your very intelligent nuclear engineer preacher is passing to you then I’m afraid he’s not very intelligent at all. To begin with, cardon-14 isn’t used to date dinosaurs. Carbon-14 dating doesn’t work for objects older than 60 to 70 thousand years so other methods are used beyond that range. And yes, scientists are aware that levels of atmospheric Carbon-14 have fluctuated over time. Fortunately they are able to calibrate their results for those changes. The latest calibration curve is called INTCAL09 if you’d care to look into it. Results calibrated using INTCAL09 give an accurate date range for objects up to 50,000 years.

There are numerous other methods of radiometric dating available for really old objects. These methods include uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon and several others. Regardless of what your preacher tells you these are the most reliable methods for dating old objects. They work accurately for objects that are billions of years old and have been used to date terrestrial rocks that are 3 to 4 billion years old. Some examples of those samples have been dated using more than one method of radiometric dating with the same result.

Unfortunately the oldest rocks discovered to date on Earth are less than 4 billion years old. This is due to the fact that most of the Earth’s crust has been recycled via tectonic activity since then. The best estimate for the age of the Earth comes not from terrestrial material but from meteorites found here on Earth. These meteorites coalesced at the same time and from the same accretion disk as the Earth and the rest of the planets. They have been dated at 4.54 billion years old using the Uranium-lead method.

BTW, I couldn’t help but notice that you failed to address the part about ERV’s. I can only assume that’s because you don’t understand it so I drew you a picture. Hope it helps.

---

I see our 50,000 years are in agreement, beyond that no dating is reliable. Evolution as far as speices change goes has never been observed, I know that there are changes within a speices for adaptation and that has been observed and that is all your little flower experiment points to. We've not had even the slightest sign of any speices evolving to another speices in the last 50,000 years, if evolution was true don't you think we would have evidence that some speices is changing to another. That nice little diagram you sent could be out of date just shortly, because some scientist now believe that the apes may have evolved from humans, they say they have convincing evidence of this, want that be a poke in the side, evolutionist changing the game plan once again, at least creationist have stuck to their guns.

Yes and that is what you would expect. Species don't magically change into another overnight. ALL evolution exists in the micro with a macro accumulative, Every generation is undistinguishable from the previous generation.
The whole "speciiation" argument is an ignorance. A strawman. Used by the uninformed to fool the uninformed

[Minimalist]

We've not had even the slightest sign of any speices evolving to another speices in the last 50,000 years,

Wrong again, as usual G-C. Why don't you get your head out of your ass and learn something before running your fucking mouth?


http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2011...ution.html

A new plant species is providing an insight into how evolution works and could help improve crop plants, scientists have revealed.

The new plant species, Tragopogon miscellus, appeared in the United States 80 years ago. It came about when two species in the daisy family, introduced from Europe, mated to produce a hybrid offspring.

The species had mated before in Europe, but the hybrids were never successful. However in America something new happened. The number of chromosomes in the hybrid spontaneously doubled, and at once it became larger than its parents and quickly spread.

Scientists studied the Tragopogon miscellus to understand how evolution works.

They found that the new plant species had relaxed control of gene expression in its earliest generations. But today, after 80 years of evolution, different patterns of gene expression are found in every plant.

"We caught evolution in the act," says Doug Soltis, co-leader of the research team. New and diverse patterns of gene expression may allow the new species to rapidly adapt in new environments.