The design argument

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Out of interest, what literature have you read with regards to the evolution of the eye? Also, how much literature have you read on evolution?

College courses on biology, don't ask me anything I didn't care about the
subject back then and put in just enough effort to get good grade. I have
read a few books on the subject Dawkins, being the one I can recall off the
top of my head. I've read several links provided here by those for it and
those against it, watched a few videos for and against.

The thing that drives me away from it is the CPU in our computers, the
effort required to get that right when life is far more complex to me just
screams random mutations through natural selection cannot do it, it is to
complex.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Worm to cow in a million years? Surely you're joking right?

No, I'm not joking, evolution claims simple life forms gave rise to the more
complex, I don't care what you want to put in the worm and cows place
but that is what you are preaching like it or not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I'm not joking, evolution claims simple life forms gave rise to the more
complex, I don't care what you want to put in the worm and cows place
but that is what you are preaching like it or not.

Sure, but let's get it right. Worm to cow was about 600 million years.

Originally posted by KellyJay
College courses on biology, don't ask me anything I didn't care about the
subject back then and put in just enough effort to get good grade. I have
read a few books on the subject Dawkins, being the one I can recall off the
top of my head. I've read several links provided here by those for it and
those against it, watched a few videos for and against. ...[text shortened]... to me just
screams random mutations through natural selection cannot do it, it is to
complex.

I disagree, I don't seen any reason why complexity cannot be built layer by layer through the unimaginable vastness of time. That's what the fossil record shows us, the further we go back the less complex life gets.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I see. Here's a link to Richard Lenski's website containing all the fat for the experiment. Perhaps you could take a while to peruse through it and then do e back to us, tell us what is 'flawed' and how it is a 'hoax'.

Have fun.

I would have to be there to see the experiment in progress. I am certainly not going to take the word of lying evolutionists. They will have to prove it to me and not by a bunch of words on paper. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Worm to cow in a million years? Surely you're joking right?

We only have about 6,000 years to work with and most of that is accounted for, so we are looking at perhaps 1,000 years that it could have happened. Of course, any sane person knows that did not happen, so evolution is a ridiculous idea. Therefore, creation by an intelligent being is the only logical alternative. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would have to be there to see the experiment in progress. I am certainly not going to take the word of lying evolutionists. They will have to prove it to me and not by a bunch of words on paper. 😏

I see. It appears I have made a mistake Ron. There was I thinking that I could have some semblance of a rational conversation with you. But it transpires your posts are still somewhere between 'dumbass' and 'moronic'. It's my fault, I should have known better.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I disagree, I don't seen any reason why complexity cannot be built layer by layer through the unimaginable vastness of time. That's what the fossil record shows us, the further we go back the less complex life gets.

Then you must be stupid. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would have to be there to see the experiment in progress. I am certainly not going to take the word of lying evolutionists. They will have to prove it to me and not by a bunch of words on paper. 😏

Even if you performed the experiments yourself you wouldn't accept the results, because you're an obstinate fool about this (or fanatic christian, same thing). You probably realise by now that there's a very good chance evolution is for real, and you don't know how to deal with it, so you go to lala-land. Pathetic, really.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sure, but let's get it right. Worm to cow was about 600 million years.

Really? I don't agree, but hey that is the discussion correct?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I disagree, I don't seen any reason why complexity cannot be built layer by layer through the unimaginable vastness of time. That's what the fossil record shows us, the further we go back the less complex life gets.

You do not get unimaginable vastness of time!

You only get a small window of having all the conditions ripe where all the
ingredients are present in the right quantities, under the right conditions,
being put them together in the proper sequences, when there is nothing
present that would inhibit the whole process from being successful. That
is not an unimaginable amount of time! Because if all the ingredients merge
into things that are not proper for life you lose your ingredients, if any of
the other necessary items on what is needed for life are not present in the
right quantities, under the right conditions, being merged in the right
sequence you don't get the right results.

For all you know those life forms in the fossil records were not the
precursors to life today, they could have just been another life form
among the many we see today. So the only real strength of the evolutionary
argument is something that we can never show as accurate or false it must
be accepted or rejected on faith the circular argument not withstanding.

I can accept the universe as billions of years old and for I know it is, and it
still does not mean what you think is true about the fossil record actually is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not get unimaginable vastness of time!

You only get a small window of having all the conditions ripe where all the
ingredients are present in the right quantities, under the right conditions,
being put them together in the proper sequences, when there is nothing
present that would inhibit the whole process from being successful. That
is not an ...[text shortened]... w it is, and it
still does not mean what you think is true about the fossil record actually is.

Sorry Kelly. I don't really understand what you're getting at apart from the last sentence.

Originally posted by C Hess
Let me put it simply: A toaster and a living organism do not display the same kind of complexity. One is the accumulation of materials that can't all form naturally without destroying each other, and is incapable of reproducing itself (or its parts), and the other is made of only a few materials, all of which can form naturally, and can reproduce its parts as ...[text shortened]... and an environment that supports them, you're good to go (or they're good to go, I should say).

Since this is (supposedly) a design argument (pro and con) I came up with an analogy to illustrate the difference between a system put together by intelligent design (a refrigerator build from parts in your home) and an appearance of design in living systems. This is the crux of the intelligent design argument.

Living systems are much more complex than a refrigerator built from parts, and you must necessarily presume it all came about by natural forces. So evolution needs to demonstrate not only how life itself is no different than any other naturally occurring event, but show how self reproducing (living) systems can demonstrate a high level of complexity leading to increasing levels of complexity... without suggesting any hint of intelligent design or guidance.

We can all presume a refrigerator must have been purposefully built (intelligent design) but evolution must presume living systems are not intelligently designed and built. So it doesn't make sense for you to ignore this particular distinction between living systems and intelligently designed systems, because this distinction is what the design argument (pro and con) is all about.

...comparing inanimate objects that consists of literally hundreds of different parts in different materials, to living organisms.

It's not just a matter of comparing parts, you need to compare the function of systems built from parts. And since this is a design argument (pro and con) you need to demonstrate how evolution can be accomplished without the appearance of intelligent design or purpose. If you can explain the formation of stars and chemical reactions and any other physical process in nature without facing an argument, then you should be able to do the same with evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then what were you claiming?

[b]How would this cause my argument to be flawed?
I don't know now because you have denied making the claim. I therefore have no idea what your argument is.[/b]

I wasn't claiming a flagellum must be attached to a motor, but I just now posted a response to C Hess that might answer your question.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry Kelly. I don't really understand what you're getting at apart from the last sentence.

People like to connect the dots when it comes to the fossil record, this life
form today comes from that fossil and so on. The dates could be spot on for
age, but that does not mean one came from the other! The only thing the
fossil record really does tell us there were creatures that were alive that are
now fossils.