The design argument

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, not even by any measure. Saying I can jump 2 feet is not saying I can
jump to the moon. Saying I can swim a half mile every morning is not
saying I can swim across an ocean. Saying I agree a bird's beak can get
larger or smaller is not saying it can turn into cold blood snake given
enough time.

No, not even by any measure. Saying I can jump 2 feet is not saying I can jump to the moon.

I think the distinction between micro and macro jumping is artificial. This is a key point that tends to be under-emphasized. So-called 'macro' jumping is simply micro-jumping happening over a long period of time.

The argument about gravity and a lack of any solid platform after leaving the ground is specious at best. It reflects the stubborn anti-humanist attitude of those who will believe anything they want to believe. If denial of unassailable scientific fact can be accomplished by faith, faith that flies in the face of empirical evidence, then we are all doomed....

Yes, doomed I tell you! And why is this, you might ask? Well, I'm glad you asked. It's because moon jump deniers have been responsible for starting 97.301% of all the wars that have ever been fought. That's why.

Originally posted by JS357
There is no inherent conflict between evolution and design. Evolution could be one of the mechanisms by which the designer regulates change in the system; changes that alter the population of the system to thrive in the changing environment.

It is where we get into specific religious beliefs that conflicts between evolution and design arise. This should i ...[text shortened]... is not adequate for religion, which demands faith. This should also tell us where faith arises.

That is only true if one doesn't bother going into the details which is where
I think if falls apart once people start going into the details on how and why
two unrelated things that need to work together actually do, I also don't
see systems being build as possible through random driving forces no
matter the environment. Natural selection would never cause any change
to take place it is suppose to only allow for those best suited to stay in
an environment yet people think it drives random mutations. Random is
just that random, you could have something added or taken away, some-
thing good or something bad happen with all the odds favoring something
bad if you were honest about the process. Those that believe in it ignore
all the issues that process really faces over time.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Would this "knowing" perchance be based on something other than wishful thinking?

You are the one that I guess has the facts you tell me!

Originally posted by JS357
Evolution theory is quite friendly to the idea that most mutations confer more disadvantager (even fatally so) than advantages. But given enough mutations, the mutations that do confer advantages will be incorporated into the genotype and passed on, more than mutations that confer disadvantages.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/07-most-mutations-in-the-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful

That is said yes, than ignored while buying into complex life forms all owe
their being to this theoretical process.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm not interested in your opinion. The question was, what 'biological mechanism' is in place to stop continual repeated steps of micro evolution becoming macro evolution?

Than quit talking to me, end of story the only thing you are going to get
from anyone here is an opinion. Forgive me for being blunt!

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]No, not even by any measure. Saying I can jump 2 feet is not saying I can jump to the moon.

I think the distinction between micro and macro jumping is artificial. This is a key point that tends to be under-emphasized. So-called 'macro' jumping is simply micro-jumping happening over a long period of time.

The argument that gravity and a lack o ...[text shortened]... ve been responsible for starting 97.301% of all the wars that have ever been fought. That's why.[/b]

There are many issues with this theory, the big one I have is there is no
reason to believe after a good random mutation occurs that another cannot
come behind it and take it away. There isn't anything while random
changes are occurring that would drive them to mold themselves into
fitting better in any environment, random changes are just that random.

To suggest that it gets colder so all the random changes that allow life to
survive in the cold stay supposes that there are random changes that allow
for life to stay in the cold, why would that ever be? Nothing drives those
changes and why would there be if the changes were random?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are many issues with this theory, the big one I have is there is no
reason to believe after a good random mutation occurs that another cannot
come behind it and take it away. There isn't anything while random
changes are occurring that would drive them to mold themselves into
fitting better in any environment, random changes are just that random. ...[text shortened]... d that ever be? Nothing drives those
changes and why would there be if the changes were random?

"There are many issues with this theory, the big one I have is there is no reason to believe after a good random mutation occurs that another cannot come behind it and take it away."


It's probably happened many times. Put that in your unlikelyhood pipe and smoke it.🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are many issues with this theory, the big one I have is there is no
reason to believe after a good random mutation occurs that another cannot
come behind it and take it away. There isn't anything while random
changes are occurring that would drive them to mold themselves into
fitting better in any environment, random changes are just that random. ...[text shortened]... d that ever be? Nothing drives those
changes and why would there be if the changes were random?

The image of jumping two feet in the air actually made a lot of sense. You have to presume the existence of consistently successive platforms that can accomplish two things, prevent gravity from bringing you back down as well as providing objects to push against. But if you can ignore small details like that, then there's no reason to believe a succession of micro jumps can't eventually get you to the moon.

However, with evolution the line between Cambrian and pre-Cambrian is as impossible to explain as abiogenesis, so imho the study of evolution should actually start at the beginning of the Cambrian period. It's not enough to simply ignore whatever beginning must be presumed, because the timeline between the starting point up until the Cambrian period is no less as difficult to explain.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The image of jumping two feet in the air actually made a lot of sense. You have to presume the existence of consistently successive platforms that can accomplish two things, prevent gravity from bringing you back down as well as providing objects to push against. But if you can ignore small details like that, then there's no reason to believe a succession ...[text shortened]... line between the starting point up until the Cambrian period is no less as difficult to explain.

Seriously though, this enormous slice of evolutionary history that seems to be missing is easily* explained. The line between Cambrian and pre-Cambrian is actually a temporal scar line.

At some point in history a free range temporal anomaly must have intersected with Earth and carried away a significant portion of the fossil record. We can't be sure when this happened but it's safe to assume it did happen. Because why else would there be zero evidence of all the various species and intermediaries that must have existed? Why can't we see this evidence? Well... we don't see it because it's no longer there. That's why.


* easy peasy lemon squeezy

Originally posted by Agerg
Firstly let's have some proper attribution:
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home.php

Secondly, do they ever actually back up these claims!?

Evolutionists have never been able to back up their claims as far as I know. In fact many of their claims, like Piltdown man, have been proven to be hoaxes. 😏

Originally posted by lemon lime
The image of jumping two feet in the air actually made a lot of sense. You have to presume the existence of consistently successive platforms that can accomplish two things, prevent gravity from bringing you back down as well as providing objects to push against. But if you can ignore small details like that, then there's no reason to believe a succession ...[text shortened]... line between the starting point up until the Cambrian period is no less as difficult to explain.

In my opinion it is explained good enough for me in Genesis. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
In my opinion it is explained good enough for me in Genesis. 😏

I've decided to switch sides and see how many holes in evolution I can plug by coming up with imaginative theories of my own. I may even coin new terminology and see what sticks... something like, for instance, truthification.

Truthification can be defined as a method (or theory) whereby a lie turns into a truth, or as a process of taking evidence pointing in the wrong direction and turning it around by telling a convincing BS story. I know I have my work cut out for me, because in order to accomplish this and make it stick two conditions must be met:

1. convince a large population of people my theory is viable (could be true)
2. sustain condition #1 long enough for it to become (be perceived as) an established fact

Don't try to stop me, because I've made up my mind and will not be swayed or sidetracked... not until I get bored and go back to what I usually do... which will probably be tomorrow... or sooner, I don't know.

Originally posted by JS357
"There are many issues with this theory, the big one I have is there is no reason to believe after a good random mutation occurs that another cannot come behind it and take it away."


It's probably happened many times. Put that in your unlikelyhood pipe and smoke it.🙂

You don't seem to care about the ramifications that nothing is safe if the full
process is ever changing and nothing stops good or bad from occurring then
at some point the process will shut down. The more complex the living
system is the more that can go wrong, and nothing is safe. Unlike a stinking
game you play where you can start over life if breaks bad enough stops,
and you seem to want to infer that the good will always out pace the bad
by BELIEVING that natural selection can keep the good going on and
filtering out the bad. Natural selection only occurs after a mutation or a
change takes place, it does not promote certain changes to occur to take in
a new environment so changes that are random would have no way of
always coming up with the proper response to a new condition.

You being a smart a$$ doesn't change that no matter what your smoking.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't seem to care about the ramifications that nothing is safe if the full
process is ever changing and nothing stops good or bad from occurring then
at some point the process will shut down.

Correct.
Far more species are now extinct than living.
Nothing is safe, evolution is relentless.

Originally posted by lemon lime
... not until I get bored and go back to what I usually do... which will probably be tomorrow... or sooner, I don't know.

I thought this sort of verbal jacking-off IS what you usually do. 😵