TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I asked for a quote. Don't make me hunt for it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I asked for a quote. Don't make me hunt for it.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's about much more then mere "similar body plans". It's instead about nested hierarchies, obtained through multiple independent lines of evidence - even to the point that it overlaps with other scientific fields.
You know this off course, as plenty of people have already informed you on this on countless occasions.
Creationists can only argue strawmen to defend their beliefs.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Please.... this to has been brought to your attention on countless occasions.
Some very common examples (the list is endless btw):
- Our s-shaped spine isn't very fit for bipedalism, causing lower back pains in 70% of humans
- our mouth is to small to house all teeth, causing many people to have their "wisdom teeth" pulled
- male nipples (waste of resources)
- largyngeal nerve (waste of resources)
- backwards eyes (all the wiring in front of photosensitive cells, causing a blind spot and in turn causing wasteful use of resources to make the brain "fill in the blanks"; and we know it can be better because other eyes, like the one of the octopus, doesn't have this problem)
- inactive DNA (waste of resources again)
- ...........................................
There's a lot more. And that's just humans.
The bio world is OVERLOADED with stuff that is unnecessary complex, wasteful use of resources, etc.
All such stuff is expected in a world where evolution shaped species. To the point that if it was NOT like that, then it would be difficult for evolution to explain why not. Perhaps even impossible. It would actually be a problem in evolutionary context.
Meanwhile, such stuff is unexpected in a world where species were "design" by an "all powerfull all intelligent entity".
If an engineer at Sony would design a camera with a blind spot, he'ld be fired for being incompetent.
Because evolution can only move forward with what is present and there is no "thinking 5 steps ahead". A backwards eye is better then no eye. Evolution can't go back to the drawing board.
Our ancestors walked on all fours, so our spine was originally evolved to walk on all fours. It was then "tinkered" with to accommodate for bipedalism.
In engineering world, if you would create robots for example that walk on all fours and then go and design a robot that walks erect, you will simply redesign that spine from scratch. Not "tinker" with the original spine to just make it work "just good enough".
Evolution doesn't shoot for "optimally perfect". Evolution just shoots for "good enough".
This is why after billions of years, there's all kinds of relics and sub-optimal designs present which from an engineering standpoint are bad, wasteful, unnecessary complex etc. For evolution, they are "good enough".
I would not design the eye backwards.
I would not use resources for unnecessary things.
I would not use a spine meant for walking on all 4s to use in a bipedal creature.
I would not design a mouth to small to house all teeth.
I would not use the same tube for breathing and eating (allowing for suffocating on food)
...
Yeah, I can tell the questions they can't answer or don't want to, by the posts that are ignored.
This thread is another example of a very familiar pattern.
Then why do you keep repeating the claim that something started from nothing?
The evidence says that is exactly what happened.
Ignoring evidence that you don't like or cannot explain is not really using the same evidence.
"Raccoon guy"? Nice.
Waving away evidence out of dislike for it isn't science either.
The first is a creationist claim that is neither logical nor supported by evidence. The second is an observed fact.
What is your point?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
What is it about this topic that gets the atheists so riled up? I have never have been able to completely figure that out. It's just a mechanism to get from point a to point b, why do you all fight so hard to try and prove that evolutionists have got everything right? If it really has no bearing on whether there's a God or not, what does it even matter?
Astrophile
Active Member
What is 'a totally different type of animal'? Are a sparrowhawk and a kite totally different types of animal? Or a duck, a goose and a swan? Or a wolf, a fox and a jackal? Or a chimpanzee, a human and a gorilla? Or a hawk moth and a peppered moth? Or a slug and a snail? Where do you draw the lines between the same type of animal, a partially different type, and a totally different type?
Astrophile
Active Member
According to the story of Pygmalion, the goddess Aphrodite turned an ivory statue into a living woman. On the other hand, the ivory statue was originally part of a living elephant, so this may not be a valid example.
Astrophile
Active Member
Can you get from an archaeopteryx to a pigeon? Can you get from Dryopithecus to a chimpanzee?
gnostic
The Lost One
Ah...it has nothing to do with atheism and atheists.
It is about biology and creationists’ not biology.
The majority of biologists in the Western world, there are more biologists with Christian background than that those to who are atheists, and they understand and accept evolutionary biology to be factual science..
You are completely ignoring that @Dan From Smithville, @metis, @shunyadragon, @Jayhawker Soule, and plenty other RF members are theists, not atheists.
Creationism, in what ever forms, be OEC, YEC, or Intelligent Design, are all religious-based and non-scientific concepts. Much of creationism and ID have not single evidence that can verify that this Creator or Designer exist.
If creationists conclude that the Creator is direct “CAUSE” of creation, whether it be Genesis Creation or Quranic Creation, then as part of the Creation concept, evidence that the Creator exist must be included.
And the same would apply to Intelligent Design in regard to the role of the Designer being the “CAUSE” of designs. As being integral part of the ID, there must be physical evidence that the Designer exist, if the Designer plays essential role for all designs.
One of the problems with ID creationists is that they like to use irrelevant analogies that have nothing to do with living organisms, as the focuses of their analogies are non-living man-made objects (eg watches, cars, computers, computer programs, mousetraps, etc) that cannot reproduce, and such objects do no have DNA that can genetically pass physical traits, from parent to offspring.
Analogies are comparable two completely different different things, so analogies aren’t biology, therefore using the Watchmaker analogy, or car analogy, or computer analogy, or mousetrap analogy, and so on, are irrelevant comparisons, which are FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy.
Beside the fiasco of comparing life-forms with non-living objects (eg watches, cars, computers, etc), ID creationists blindly overlook the facts that real designers of cars, computers, computer software, and so on, are real qualified people, and you can show evidence that these designers are real people, evidence such as qualifications, student records, employment records, tax records, birth certificates, and if they drive or travel overseas they would have driver license or passports, medical records, and so on. Plus, you can meet designers, engineers, architects, programmers, etc, or even be one of these people.
But can you show and verify that “Designer” in Intelligent Design concept, exist.
Creationists don’t even understand what evidence is.
Evidence are testable observations of natural phenomena or physical phenomena.
Evidence don’t just “verify” solid logical models, but more importantly “refute” weak or incorrect models.
Evidence are also observations that provide useful information or data about the phenomena, such as quantities, measurements, test multiple evidence against each other, observed & understand the properties of the phenomena (eg learning how the phenomena work), etc.
You cannot observe the Designer, you cannot measure, test or analyze the Designer.
They (ID creationists) ignored evidence in favour of relying stupid irrelevant analogies.
And it isn’t just the False Equivalence fallacy. ID creationists rely on all sorts of logical fallacies, eg appeal to ignorance, argument from incredulity, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, and so on.
And guess what, Wildswanderer: creationists, like ID creationists, like to use the word “imply” or “infer”.
For instance, nature (eg life) looks complex, complexity implies design, therefore designs infer the Designer.
The use of infer, in implying this or that, is faulty & unrealistic uses of inference.
Creationists often reveal they are not hopeless in understanding evidence, they are also terrible at logic.
Astrophile
Active Member
What is it about this topic that gets some theists so riled up? If evolution has no bearing on the existence of God, why do some Christians insist that we must reject it in favour of a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If one wants to learn about the world it is a rather important topic. If a person wants to believe that themselves, but is fine. But too many try to force their beliefs upon others. For a while it was illegal to teach about evolution in many schools. If you want to believe in the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy .or creation myths in the Bible that is your right. It is not your right to try to force your children to believe those myths.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
If you don't know you should educate yourself.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Says the person who believes everything came from nothing. And yes it has everything to do with atheists. I guarantee you I can start any kind of thread on miracles, I can state that I believe a man rose from the dead, and I will not get near as much push back from the atheists as questioning anything about evolution theory.
It's clearly their religion, but why?
Believing in creation doesn't dis qualify a person from being a scientist by the way.
You don't have a lot of credibility when you make statements.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
IDK, seeing as I'm not riled up. I'm amused how many people defend evolution theory as if it's the Holy Grail.
Never mind that it's always changing. Darwin believed bears could evolve into whales for goodness sake.
It's like so many people cannot see the obvious flaws.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your claim, your burden of proof. Refusing to support a claim is no different from you just admitting that you are wrong.