Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence in favour of common descent, and none in favour of "design."

None? Really? I know plenty of people that would disagree.

This is probably why the former is widely accepted in the scientific community, and the latter is not.

Argumentum ad populum.[/b]

Yes, there is none. The main reason for that is that a "designer" can't be measured and the designer hypothesis does not make any predictions, while common descent leads to a great number of predictions concerning empirical evidence, all of which match the evidence at hand.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Yes, there is none. The main reason for that is that a "designer" can't be measured and the designer hypothesis does not make any predictions, while common descent leads to a great number of predictions concerning empirical evidence, all of which match the evidence at hand.

Nonsense. If you stumble upon a spaceship, which explanation sounds the most reasonable? It was designed and requires a designer or it was assembled out of a junkyard by a random whirlwind that happened to pass by?

Some would argue that a single human cell is far more complex than a spaceship.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Nonsense. If you stumble upon a spaceship, which explanation sounds the most reasonable? It was designed and requires a designer or it was assembled out of a junkyard by a random whirlwind that happened to pass by?

Some would argue that a single human cell is far more complex than a spaceship.

Indeed, before we knew about evolution, people struggled to explain the diversity and complexity of life.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Indeed, before we knew about evolution, people struggled to explain the diversity and complexity of life.

It’s easy to connect dots when you know what you are looking for isn’t it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It’s easy to connect dots when you know what you are looking for isn’t it?

Yes, considering the evidence in favour of the theory of evolution is so overwhelmingly vast, it is quite easy to conclude is it a correct description.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Yes, considering the evidence in favour of the theory of evolution is so overwhelmingly vast, it is quite easy to conclude is it a correct description.

Especially if you you only accept arguments, assumptions, hypothesis, and anything else that favors the theory as truth and not ponder the possibility it could be wrong!

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What would be different millions of years ago, in the context of evolution?

A simpler code will have less features, including error checking. It will be less than, with respect to all enhancements it supposedly acquired over time, making it more susceptible to errors. It would also have less features in total so critical errors could do a great deal of damage earlier, and in greater frequency.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Especially if you you only accept arguments, assumptions, hypothesis, and anything else that favors the theory as truth and not ponder the possibility it could be wrong!

I only accept arguments based on empirical evidence. Fortunately, DNA, reproduction and mutations, the essential ingredients of evolution in the modern synthesis, have been observed.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
A simpler code will have less features, including error checking. It will be less than, with respect to all enhancements it supposedly acquired over time, making it more susceptible to errors. It would also have less features in total so critical errors could do a great deal of damage earlier, and in greater frequency.

What does "a simpler code" refer to? DNA was no different a million years ago.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I only accept arguments based on empirical evidence. Fortunately, DNA, reproduction and mutations, the essential ingredients of evolution in the modern synthesis, have been observed.

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica/

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What does "a simpler code" refer to? DNA was no different a million years ago.

What DNA did you use to make that comparison?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What does "a simpler code" refer to? DNA was no different a million years ago.

Faith based claim!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What DNA did you use to make that comparison?

DNA is a type of molecule, it only varies in length and the type of base pair (out of 4 possibilities) at each segment of the chain. If it was otherwise different it wouldn't be DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
DNA is a type of molecule, it only varies in length and the type of base pair (out of 4 possibilities) at each segment of the chain. If it was otherwise different it wouldn't be DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

And yet random alterations could be thrown in without respect to outcomes and locations and improvements occur according to theory.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
https://evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica/

"Natural selection can select for present but not for future function."

Evolutionists apparently want to have it both ways, or maybe they're just confused... because predetermination of a future function is in itself a function of intelligent guidance.

In order to select for a future function an organism would need to think ahead, and recognize the potential for that future function. Like it or not, Evolutionists have not been able to avoid mingling precepts of intelligent guidance in with their macro-evolution argument, even as they are (at the same time) dismissing ID as 'creationist poppycock'.

If no one recognized signs of intelligent design then disciplines such as archeology and forensic science would be relagated to mysticism. The precepts of ID are an integral part (not just ancillary) of science in general... and especially so in the two examples above.