The design argument

Originally posted by C Hess
Okay, there are a few things that needs to be considered here. I hope you'll bear with me.

1) Something like a refrigerator is built for a purpose, and every part in it has a purpose. There isn't a single part in a refrigerator that could have evolved, or even come about by pure random chance, and there's not a single part in it that aren't used. The anal ...[text shortened]... you should also realise why your analogy fails to demonstrate the need for an outside designer.

The so-called vestigial parts are just parts that the evolution scientists have not yet understood their function. I doubt if you really understand how a refrigerator works and it is very simple compared to a living creature. You are simply talking out of your ass.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time throughout the full process

why? if you are so sure about this and the scientists are wrong you must be able to explain why we should have so many fossils.[/b]

The worldwide flood. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Has anyone ever seen the formation of a star? I don't think so. 😏

Not of the same star no, since the process takes of the order of half a million years we wouldn't expect to have, but we have seen lots of stars at different stages in their evolution. One thing we have seen plenty of times is the death of stars, and there is no reason that would happen if the universe were only 6,000 years old, or are you going to deny the existence of supernova explosions?

Originally posted by RJHinds
How do you know this?

I don't know this, because I'm not equating 'validation' with 'proof'. I don't see a problem with the explanation of new stars being able to re-cook previously cooked elements (thereby becoming heavier elements) because according to the known laws of physics it can happen that way.

Evolution (theory of) on the other hand has a different set of problems to solve.

Originally posted by C Hess
Ha! I misspelled. I do that sometimes. I hope you'll bear with me. Uhm not perfect, you no.

Uhm not perfect, you no.

Me not perfect, me no? Well shoot, I could have told you that.
And my name is not "Uhm".

...bear with me.

Oh sure, bring a bear with you to the fight... all I have is this stupid chicken.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time throughout the full process

why? if you are so sure about this and the scientists are wrong you must be able to explain why we should have so many fossils.[/b]

The reason we have so many fossils is at some point time those guys were
put in place where they could turn into fossils and not just die and decay.
Maybe a flood put them in that position, who knows?

Originally posted by C Hess
Okay, there are a few things that needs to be considered here. I hope you'll bear with me.

1) Something like a refrigerator is built for a purpose, and every part in it has a purpose. There isn't a single part in a refrigerator that could have evolved, or even come about by pure random chance, and there's not a single part in it that aren't used. The anal ...[text shortened]... you should also realise why your analogy fails to demonstrate the need for an outside designer.

I necessarily have to keep my response as brief as possible, because otherwise it would be too long.

First of all, there are good analogies and bad analogies, but an analogy isn't meant to be an exact representation. My analogy doesn't include reproduction because obviously it can't do that...

You bring up reproduction to point out a "flaw" in my analogy, but in order for me to respond to this I need you to show how the feature of reproduction was able occur in the first place. If the distinction between Micro and Macro is artificial, then I could say the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is artificial as well. Because the only difference in a (blind) selection process is that one is able to select from a previous organism and another has been selected from the environment.

A feature like reproduction being passed along from one organism to the next is easy to explain. Not so easy to explain how it could have been selected from the environment, seeing as how the environment doesn't have a template of reproduction available for selection... it's either there or it isn't. But you must still presume it was selected (or created) from only the environment.

I know you don't need to acknowledge abiogenesis because it doesn't fit the strict definition of evolution (as evolutionists have defined it). But I can't be limited by this definition because you've now opened up a whole new can of worms... (reproduction).

I must also presume other features instantly coming on line with no previous template to draw from. Such as the ability to draw or access nutrients and expel waste (because it needs to be fed). If it draws or accesses waste and expels nutrients then say goodbye to the new life form. If it performs all of the necessary functions for living, but doesn't happen to be able to reproduce itself, then we can again say goodbye to the new life form.

In my opinion (I could be wrong) reproduction would be the most difficult feature to presume, because it wouldn't immediately prevent an organism from living... it would only prevent the organism from passing along what it acquired from the environment.

This is already too long... so I'll have to come back later if I overlooked something or didn't address all of your points.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The reason we have so many fossils is at some point time those guys were
put in place where they could turn into fossils and not just die and decay.
Maybe a flood put them in that position, who knows?

Who knows? Geologists, paleontologists, biologists and other people who investigated the evidence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Who knows? Geologists, paleontologists, biologists and other people who investigated the evidence.

God knows better. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
Okay, there are a few things that needs to be considered here. I hope you'll bear with me.

1) Something like a refrigerator is built for a purpose, and every part in it has a purpose. There isn't a single part in a refrigerator that could have evolved, or even come about by pure random chance, and there's not a single part in it that aren't used. The anal ...[text shortened]... you should also realise why your analogy fails to demonstrate the need for an outside designer.

2) We know for a fact that every individual building block found in biological life can form through natural processes, from amino and nucleic acids, to specific proteins and other organic molecules (and by natural processes I mean to include cellular activities).

We also know for a fact this natural process has to follow a carefully sequenced path (pattern of building) in order for it to build those specific proteins and other organic molecules. You can't just throw everything together and hope the dots will all connect, you have to presume a specific ordering of building (and direction) just happened to come into play. The organism must also have some mechanism for directing where those proteins and organic molecules go because of what they do, so there's even a carefully sequenced pattern to follow after proteins and molecular machines have been built.

Or maybe we can simply presume the function is inherent in those proteins and organic molecules, and they can find their own way of being useful. Who knows? An organism fulfilling any purpose of self preservation doesn't mean a purpose had to have been intentionally put there if you presume it must have come with the full package of advantages we imagine were already there. But seeing as how this points back to abiogenesis... 😕 😛 😞

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]2) We know for a fact that every individual building block found in biological life can form through natural processes, from amino and nucleic acids, to specific proteins and other organic molecules (and by natural processes I mean to include cellular activities).

We also know for a fact this natural process has to follow a carefully sequenced p ...[text shortened]... imagine were already there. But seeing as how this points back to abiogenesis... 😕 😛 😞[/b]

Apparently C Hess has strong faith in evolution being able to perform miracles. Too bad that he has such little faith in God.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Who knows? Geologists, paleontologists, biologists and other people who investigated the evidence.

Ya think?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are a lot of creatures that share features alive today, why wouldn't there
be more that died off before? Again, shared features are just shared features
they are not perfect link, if the changes came in as small ones over time there
would NOT be just creatures that shared features there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time through ...[text shortened]... ims like
that is because you need to, even though it isn't true! You see what you
want to see!

It's not just that animals share features. Dolphins and sharks, for instance, have very similar features, yet they're very distantly related. All the relevant features has to match (dolphins are mammals and sharks are not). When we consider fossil evidence, it's a matter of simply noticing the appearance of gradual build-up of features over time. When you put the fossils in chronological order, taking into account geographical distribution, we see gradual change over time between generations. This is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, but it's not consistent with instant creation. The fossil record provides you with two basic problems from a creationist perspective. First, the increase in complexity when we view the fossils chronologically. Second, we don't find all the fossils in the same layers, meaning they couldn't all have lived at the same time.

You can't say that I see what I want to see when the evidence only really supports my side of the argument. It is you who can only see what you want to see. This is not simply a matter of opinion or "faith". You are trying to defend an already defeated explanation for the diversity of life. You can point out that we don't yet have a complete understanding of how life started, and that we can't know for sure that your god isn't guiding the process. I couldn't easily argue against that. I don't believe I'd even try that hard, to be honest (unless I'm in the mood, of course). What you cannot say is that all fossils are from animals that once lived together, because the evidence simply doesn't support that statement. I mean you could, but you'd look silly, like RJHinds with all his poor links over there.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The reason we have so many fossils is at some point time those guys were
put in place where they could turn into fossils and not just die and decay.
Maybe a flood put them in that position, who knows?

Well, we know that a flood theory can't explain the neat ordering of strata. There is however one theory that fits well with this evidence. Care to venture a guess?

Originally posted by C Hess
It's not just that animals share features. Dolphins and sharks, for instance, have very similar features, yet they're very distantly related. All the relevant features has to match (dolphins are mammals and sharks are not). When we consider fossil evidence, it's a matter of simply noticing the appearance of gradual build-up of features over time. When you put ...[text shortened]... tement. I mean you could, but you'd look silly, like RJHinds with all his poor links over there.

You see a gradual build up, I see creatures that are fully developed and
for all we know are not related. You are connecting dots that you really do
know not if they should be connected, I don't care if you do have the time
line correct on when these things were laid down and became fossils. Just
because they may look like something it does not mean they are related.

There are creatures alive today that are not as complex as others that are
also alive today. It does not mean that one came from another!

I'll grant you the different layers presents questions about time it does not
not show one life form came from another.