The design argument

Originally posted by RJHinds
A mutation is a mistake in biological replication.

So by what process do you think different DNA sequences arose that led to different eye colors?

Originally posted by C Hess
A simple yes would have sufficed.

Like lemon lime, you are comparing a biological system that consists of two basic building blocks capable of replicating themselves to form tissues and organs, with a manmade system consisting of hundreds of non-replicating, purpose-built parts. It's a useless and limiting analogy.

There is absolutely nothing about obse ...[text shortened]... ned by the most fanatic deniers of evolution only. It has no empirical evidence speaking for it.

"Irreducible complexity is a fantasy maintained by the most fanatic deniers of evolution only. It has no empirical evidence speaking for it."

To have peers review anything with this mind set, you can kiss goodbye
any ability to give a fair and honest hearing to anything put forward.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you belief science gets many things wrong? does the peer review process fail in other areas? or just ones that conflict with your god?

The arguments I've been putting out there I have not talked about God,
yet you seem to be unable to leave God out. Which should also tell you
that those that love evolution's common ancestor have a great bias and
will apply it to all papers, discussions, and anything else that goes against
their doctrine.

Originally posted by C Hess
?

Your evolution eyes are showing!

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Irreducible complexity is a fantasy maintained by the most fanatic deniers of evolution only. It has no empirical evidence speaking for it."

To have peers review anything with this mind set, you can kiss goodbye
any ability to give a fair and honest hearing to anything put forward.

Actually, no. Bring empirical evidence in support of creationism, and explain all the evidence collected so far that matches evolution but not creationism, and you're in. Until you do, I'm gonna stick with the only theory that holds up to all the evidence so far.

But good luck to you. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
Actually, no. Bring empirical evidence in support of creationism, and explain all the evidence collected so far that matches evolution but not creationism, and you're in. Until you do, I'm gonna stick with the only theory that holds up to all the evidence so far.

But good luck to you. 🙂

You have blinders on and you don't see it, I doubt anyone can show you
this, you want to be blind to that which will not support your theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your evolution eyes are showing!

I explained just how natural observations support the idea of evolution working in small incremental steps and you respond by saying I'm blind to the "fact" that evolution cannot do that which people proclaim. It's not my "evolution eyes" showing. It's your "creationist mind". I can't reach you over there in lala-land.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have blinders on and you don't see it, I doubt anyone can show you
this, you want to be blind to that which will not support your theory.

Again, show me empirical evidence that doesn't support evolution. You being unable to connect dots is not empirical evidence. I'm sorry.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The arguments I've been putting out there I have not talked about God,
yet you seem to be unable to leave God out. Which should also tell you
that those that love evolution's common ancestor have a great bias and
will apply it to all papers, discussions, and anything else that goes against
their doctrine.

regardless of what you have discussed in this thread. its a bit of a coincidence dont you think, that the only areas of science where you think they have made a massive mistake just so happen to be the areas that conflict with your religion....or am i wrong? are there areas that do not conflict with religion that you have an issues with..................cmon kelly, if the scientific system is so flawed then there must be other areas where science has gotten it completely wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
A simple yes would have sufficed.

Like lemon lime, you are comparing a biological system that consists of two basic building blocks capable of replicating themselves to form tissues and organs, with a manmade system consisting of hundreds of non-replicating, purpose-built parts. It's a useless and limiting analogy.

There is absolutely nothing about obse ...[text shortened]... ned by the most fanatic deniers of evolution only. It has no empirical evidence speaking for it.

We are comparing a biological to something else so you can see the issue
that are really there! Getting hardware in the right shape doesn't make it
function properly, have all the pieces to any piece of equipment all in the
right place without the proper power will not allow it all to function as it
should or at all if this isn't connected correctly. You can put all the parts
of a computer together yet if the software isn't supportive you will not have
a functional PC.

Between your ears you believe that DNA through random mutation and
natural selection will not only build a nerve but with the building give the
nerve the ability to function as a nerve, build a vein have it go where it is
needed with the proper shape and strength, and so on. You think this is
just a easy thing to do that with time it would just occur!

All the while avoiding anything external that would kill it off, starve it, or
do unrecoverable harm to it. If you cannot grasp the vast task you are
just accepting as reality, it isn't because of logic or science it is because
of faith and desire these are so thought of as true.

The biological systems all have the same issue your computer does and
a vast amount more making life even more complex. The heart if a flaw
occurs that is bad enough game over either slowly or very fast, I'm well
aware of the heart thank you very much! Trail and error in getting all the
right mutations doing all the right things, under the proper conditions
leaves little to no room for error.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
regardless of what you have discussed in this thread. its a bit of a coincidence dont you think, that the only areas of science where you think they have made a massive mistake just so happen to be the areas that conflict with your religion....or am i wrong? are there areas that do not conflict with religion that you have an issues with................. ...[text shortened]... system is so flawed then there must be other areas where science has gotten it completely wrong.

If you want to talk about God start another thread!
This one is about design argument!
Scientific system has people in it, I've pointed out to you that people are
flawed! You get a group together you can get a herd mentality, step away
from that which binds you together you are not accepted as one of the
good ones. Evolution is a binding theory those that accept it will attack any
and all that disagree there will be no fair hearing on the matter.


Areas of faith people are flawed there too, I've not made any claim that is
not true, I think it is even more screwed up to tell you the truth. We need
someone better than ourselves to help us, which I do believe is here!

Originally posted by C Hess
I explained just how natural observations support the idea of evolution working in small incremental steps and you respond by saying I'm blind to the "fact" that evolution cannot do that which people proclaim. It's not my "evolution eyes" showing. It's your "creationist mind". I can't reach you over there in lala-land.

I've not debating small changes occur, I've admitted that and support the
idea! I even call it evolution in reality! What I do not go along with which you
support is that which none of us have seen and that is those small changes
adding up into things that were never there before over time!

You have a huge amount of beliefs and assumptions you believe are factual.
When I talk about God I call it faith, when I talk about anything that I
cannot prove or support I'll bring up faith, with you this is not true! You will
look at a fossil record and assume these are showing you what you want
to see, are they, you don't know and no one can prove otherwise so you are
safe, you cannot be proved right or wrong.

You have NO natural observation to support common ancestors outside of
some species are related to others, which could mean something if it were
not for the fact there are so many that are related to others!

If there were common ancestors for every life form there should be a million
shades of monkey and human hybrids floating around the small changes
would still be going on, instead we have two very different creatures, they
share some traits, but even here they are vastly different.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to talk about God start another thread!
This one is about design argument!
Scientific system has people in it, I've pointed out to you that people are
flawed! You get a group together you can get a heard mentality, step away
from that which binds you together you are not accepted as one of the
good ones. Evolution is a binding theory those ...[text shortened]... ll you the truth. We need
someone better than ourselves to help us, which I do believe is here!

If you want to talk about God start another thread!
This one is about design argument!

you want to have a design argument.........without god? ha!!


You get a group together you can get a heard mentality

a group??? you are talking about thousand possibly hundreds of thousands of uber competitive scientists, fighting against each other to be the ones who make the break through. its about as far from a club as could possibly be.

if you are so blind to other arguments, can you explain how michael behe's (a creationist scientist) paper, finding faults in some 'evolutionary science' was peer reviewed and accepted by the science world.

he submitted it, it was reviewed and found to be a correct theory. according to your paranoia it would have been dismissed.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]If you want to talk about God start another thread!
This one is about design argument!

you want to have a design argument.........without god? ha!!


You get a group together you can get a heard mentality

a group??? you are talking about thousand possibly hundreds of thousands of uber competitive scientists, fighting against each ...[text shortened]... iewed and found to be a correct theory. according to your paranoia it would have been dismissed.[/b]

Design can point you to God, but it does not automatically mean God!
If design meant God go look at your car, does that prove God?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]If you want to talk about God start another thread!
This one is about design argument!

you want to have a design argument.........without god? ha!!


You get a group together you can get a heard mentality

a group??? you are talking about thousand possibly hundreds of thousands of uber competitive scientists, fighting against each ...[text shortened]... iewed and found to be a correct theory. according to your paranoia it would have been dismissed.[/b]

One out of?
That is more than likely why Behe is attacked over and over again!