Just Accidental?

[Sapiens]

Oh I agree....1) a brilliant Designer and 2) a masterful use of color and contrast. Breathtaking.

Denying that these are designed is like walking into an art gallery and claiming there is no artist. That was just a small sample of the color and patterning in the butterfly/moth world.....there are so many more...all just accidents.

No. There is a major difference, organisms are self-reproducing, art on a gallery wall is not. It is reproduction that is at the basis of evolution and speciation.

Mumbo jumbo. That's the explanation you accept? I think its a load of unsubstantiated rubbish personally. You can keep it if it makes you feel 'educated'.

You are, self-identified, as poorly educated. I'll stick with evidence that has stood the examination of people who are educated in the field.

Do you believe that amoebas evolved into dinosaurs Sapiens?

Is that some strange belief of yours? Have you any evidence to support it?

I have no doubt that you will encounter my 'strawman' at some point in your existence.....let me know how that meeting goes, will you?

Having no doubt when advancing a claim that is without supporting evidence is not dissimilar to doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Deeje]

 

[Deeje]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you believe that amoebas evolved into dinosaurs?

Single celled creatures almost certainly evolved into dinosaurs.

Can you prove it?

No, nor need it be proven. The evidence is overwhelming, but can never rise to the level of proof however correct the theory is. Justified belief is sufficient.

Can you prove that it couldn't happen? Can you prove intelligent design?

Of course not. It's not your standard for belief either. Yours is faith,mine is evidence, and neither of us require proof.

No design you say? [photos of beautiful lepidopterans deleted] That is easy to say until you really look at them.....these guys just 'designed' themselves, did they?

There is no reason to believe that they were designed, or that blind evolution cannot generate such colorful displays.

 

[Sapiens]

Single celled creatures almost certainly evolved into dinosaurs.

Absolutely, but definitely not directly, nor through amoebas, a rather highly evolved and specialized group.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The "overwhelming" evidence in the fossil record is actually nothing of the sort. If anything it is extremely disappointing from the evolutionary perspective.

Actually, the scientific community seems to be very satisfied with the theory and the support for it, which you might not be aware includes more than the thousands of fossils found already. Imagine where we'll be in 50 and 100 years!

The predictions have been made to fit in with the interpretation of the evidence. So what you guys are teaching kids is more fantasy than teaching them about an Intelligent Designer.

Nah, you guys have the market covered on fantasy. You don't even one fossil in support of your beliefs, nor anything else. Isn't that the definition of fantasy, like Harry Potter?

Who are you trying to convince, skeptics,or yourself?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe:

 

[Deeje]

Single celled creatures almost certainly evolved into dinosaurs.

Of course they did

....and that is more believable than the existence of an Intelligent Designer. You cannot prove that it ever happened, but you imagine it did because someone interpreted the evidence to fit the theory. Priceless.

No, nor need it be proven. The evidence is overwhelming, but can never rise to the level of proof however correct the theory is. Justified belief is sufficient.

So we are equals.....I have always maintained this. My Creator has no need to prove his existence either. My justified belief is sufficient as well.

Can you prove that it couldn't happen? Can you prove intelligent design?

Can you prove that the Creator doesn't exist? Can you prove evolution ever took place?.....I know you can suggest it and predict things but you know that there is no concrete evidence in existence.

Yours is faith,mine is evidence, and neither of us require proof.

You just said you don't need proof. But your "evidence" is all circumstantial. There were no witnesses your Honor.

There is no reason to believe that they were designed, or that blind evolution cannot generate such colorful displays.

Yep...blind evolution at work....

Are you blind?

 

[Darkstorn]

Are you blind?

So, your argument is a bunch of internet pictures, and when people don't see your "evidence" in said bitmap files, you accuse them of blindness.

That's like me accusing you of stupidity because you're not seeing the silliness of your own claims.

/E: To be serious even for a tiny iota, no matter how pointless it is: Deeje, birds aren't made "artful" or beautiful for human standards anyway. Your mistake for anthropomorphizing. I'll tell you, and you've probably been told this same thing many times when you post silly pictures as evidence for design because of a self-imposed complexity limit in your brain, that each one of those "beautiful" colors has a purpose and is useful. In this case, it's mostly to appeal to the opposing sex of each bird to ensure mating... So that color is actually essentially, evidence for evolution. And that it's somehow working for you even though you're supposedly a human.

I can see "subjective" beauty in those birds. But to even consider it objective for a second is like shooting one's argument in the foot: Your argument's premise is a subjective assessment taken to be objective fact.

It is your subjective *opinion* that those birds are beautiful. Or even complex.

You'll probably face this a lot: When you try to use pictures of animals to evidence design, you are actually posting records and observations of evolution...

Also: Evolution is not blind. It takes into account more things that you could probably conceive of(i.e more than 3).

 

[Deeje]

So, your argument is a bunch of internet pictures, and when people don't see your "evidence" in said bitmap files, you accuse them of blindness.

Yep, pretty much......If you enter an artist's gallery and he isn't in on that day so you don't get to actually see him, how do you tell that the paintings and pieces of art are his work? Don't you look for his signature? Don't you look at the style, the use of color, the theme of his work?

Same with the creatures pictured above.....the Designer's 'signature' is on all of them. His style is unmistakable, his use of color and design breathtaking....praiseworthy.

That's like me accusing you of stupidity because you're not seeing the silliness of your own claims.

And you have no idea how funny that statement was. Genius!

 

[Darkstorn]

Yep, pretty much......If you enter an artist's gallery and he isn't in on that day so you don't get to actually see him, how do you tell that the paintings and pieces of art are his work? Don't you look for his signature? Don't you look at the style, the use of color, the theme of his work?

The problem: You seeing "style," "signature," "use of color" and "themes" in a bird is wholly subjective. It's an opinion, and yours isn't any more valid than mine or anyone else's. When i look at those birds, i don't see that any artist was involved. Do you really not acknowledge that people might see it differently to yourself? You literally seem to make fun of people who don't see your extremely hard-line way of thinking.

Same with the creatures pictured above.....the Designer's 'signature' is on all of them. His style is unmistakable, his use of color and design breathtaking....praiseworthy.

But that is a subjective assessment. And only fools mistake subjective assessments for facts. Do i actually need to point out that you thinking that they're self-evident in itself is evidence only that they are self-evident to people with a similar mindset to yours?

In plain speech: When YOU look at those pictures, YOU feel a certain way about them. But OTHERS will feel differently. You are not acknowledging this at all, and holding your sense-perceptions not only as superior to everyone else, but also absolute. You mistake people not seeing whatever you see as blindness on their part.

You don't acknowledge other viewpoints as well as you expect others to acknowledge yours. I think it's dishonest, and the way you don't seem to understand it almost makes it seem like you're trolling.

I feel this is an exercise in futility. You expect compelling evidence to discount your subjective assessment of internet pictures. Yet you don't demand the same standard from yourself. That i also find extremely dishonest.

No true believer would show that kind of dishonesty on purpose unless your entire purpose was to bring suffering to mankind.

And you have no idea how funny that statement was. Genius!

I think it pales in comparison to whatever you say most of the time with apparent seriousness.

Notice, i said apparent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course they did ....and that is more believable than the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

Yep.

You cannot prove that it ever happened, but you imagine it did because someone interpreted the evidence to fit the theory.

There is no need to prove it. No scientific theory or law can or need be proved. We cannot prove that the next apple that falls from a tree will head to the earth like every apple before it, yet we know it will.

The validity of a scientific theory or law is evaluated by its ability to unify observations, make useful predictions, and have fruitful technological applications.

So we are equals.....I have always maintained this. My Creator has no need to prove his existence either. My justified belief is sufficient as well.

No, our ideas are not equally valid. Yours are faith based, mine evidence and reason based. Bill Maher spoke to this:

"We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you prove that the Creator doesn't exist?

That depends what you mean by "the Creator." A creator? No?

But certain gods can be ruled out by their descriptions, which include mutually exclusive qualities. Such gods a re logically impossible.

Can you prove evolution ever took place?

It's been proven. It's been observed.

You just said you don't need proof. But your "evidence" is all circumstantial. There were no witnesses your Honor.

Irrelevant.

I deleted your birds. They're beautiful, but if they are offered as evidence of intelligent design, they constitute a fallacious argument from incredulity. You're essentially saying that you just can't see how that could happen without an intelligent designer.

OK, but that is irrelevant to others that have no problem with that idea. I have no reason to believe that nature could not generate such creatures. I have a harder time believing that it could produce a god.

Why would it be persuasive to anybody else for you to say that you just can't see how it could happen, especially given your faith based religious views and your relative lack of interest and sophistication in science. Of course you can't see it.

That's fine, but once again, your arguments are impotent if they consist mostly of what you find hard to believe, repeatedly demanding proof of the unprovableas if that were a requirement for justified belief, and evading tough questions. If your purpose is to persuade skeptics, you need to understand your target audience better - how it thinks, and what it finds persuasive.

Now that we know what you can't see, I'll tell what I can't see: Why you think that a skeptic would believe that colorful plumage cannot exist uncreated and undesigned, but that a god can. It's a point that others and I have made many times, one which simply gets ignored. It basically defeats your argument that intelligent design is necessary because it explains biological reality better than evolution. No it doesn't. It creates a more intractable problem than it attempts to solve. It substitutes an idea that has never borne any fruit, explained anything (it has no mechanism), predicts nothing, is unfalsifiable, and has no useful application for one that does/is all of those things.

That's the standard by which an idea is measured, not proof.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And you have no idea how funny that statement was. Genius!

Here's a new word for you, from RationalWiki:

Bulverism - "the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychological patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place."

This is also a favorite debate technique of yours as the little laughing icon attests. It's assumed that if you had a rebuttal to the claim that you would have offered it rather than turning to this.

 

[Polymath257]

But of course your 'sources' wouldn't be biased at all...would they?

Do you believe that amoebas evolved into dinosaurs? Can you prove it?

No design you say?

[

No, amoebas didn't evolve into dinosaurs. The term 'amoeba' isn't a biological classification; it is a description of the ability to form pseudopods. So, some amoebas are fungal. Dinosaurs are not descended from fungi.

But, it is quite certain that dinosaurs *did* evolve, ultimately and over about a billion years, from single celled ancestors. But the process wasn't overnight and happened over many, many generations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why do all your responses to me begin with personal observations about my motives or my character?

Seriously? You constantly post all sorts of accusations against scientists, including saying that science as a whole is a "fraud factory", and now you're complaining about things getting personal?

Unbelievable.

You speak of rebuttals but I haven't seen anything convincing from you so far.

Of course you haven't....you can't. You're not allowed to find anything from evolutionary biology to be convincing, because if you did you would become an "evolutionist", which means you couldn't be a JW, which means you would be shunned by all your JW friends and family.

And then you're so lacking in self-awareness, you accuse about others being biased and cite their bias as sufficient reason to dismiss the material they post. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, you probably should stop and think on it some more.

I will never compromise my religious beliefs because I believe that they are true.

And that would be fine if you'd just stop there. But you don't. You take that next big leap and try and argue against science that you go out of your way to not understand, and accuse scientists of being part of a "fraud factory" even though you can't point to anything fraudulent.

If you would just say "I believe evolution is false because of my religious beliefs" and leave it at that, things would be very different.

Nature speaks about its Designer unless you have your fingers in your ears, whistling Dixie. Are you any different to me in that respect?

Yes, very different. Those of you who believe in this "designer" can't do one simple thing......point to something in nature that you believe is "designed" and describe the methods you used to reach that conclusion. Instead all you can do is what you did above, i.e., name a system and then say "It's so complex, I can't imagine how it could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed". Then I guess you're expecting everyone to be persuaded by this fallacious appeal to your own ignorance.

Again, if you don't see the problem with that, you should stop and think on it more.

Accusing me of being biased

Accusing you? You've repeatedly admitted that your religious beliefs prevent you from ever accepting evolution as real.......I mean, that's you saying those things, not me, so I don't need to "accuse" you of anything. You've admitted it yourself.

when bias is clearly shown by evolutionists for their own beliefs is a little silly, don't you think?

Where's this bias? Show me.

It is ridiculous to think that any source provided by me would ever meet with your approval

Here's the difference though....when you cite a source, I actually go to it and respond to the material it contains. You OTOH just wave it away with lame excuses and childish accusations.

and no source you provide, or have provided to date, has anything resembling irrefutable evidence for macro-evolution

Yes they do, but you as you note above you are not allowed to recognize any of it as valid. That's why showing you more data and trying to explain the basics to you is a waste of time. You're not the slightest bit open to even the possibility that evolutionary theory might be accurate. Why? Because that's what JW doctrine demands.

As long as you're a JW, you literally have no choice.

 

[stevevw]

So what you are saying is that a god personally sat down and designed this moth and assembled its DNA so that the moth would look exactly like his design? And this god did that for millions upon millions of species on and off over the course of four billion years?

No I am saying that there is more capability within the DNA of each creature to produce this sort of thing. It doesn't totally come from natural selection and random mutations. The fact is for a feature to be selected it has to have a big selection advantage otherwise its just another one of thousands of small non-selectable bits of nothing that get lost in the wash and never become anything. So for it to be so significant to be selected it has to happen in a big way. For it to happen in a big way it has to have some help or some inside information. So life has more ability to put together stuff like this in its DNA through a combination of selection of existing genetic info that is stored in the vast amounts of what some say is junk DNA that can be activated and the ability to tap into a lot more genetic info through cohabitation and the environment.

Natural selection does not have that amount of creativity. It may be able to select some refining of existing features but it cannot create such a complete picture through a hit and miss process. It will break down and not get past the first couple of blobs or marks. If it could then we would have seen examples of blobs and marks all over many creatures on their way to creating Picassos. But we don't, we see completed pictures and well-defined shapes and patterns no matter what they represent whether that be for deterring predators or just pretty colours and patterns for mating. If you look at the cuttlefish, it can change its colours, patterns and shape in an instant.

 

[Sapiens]

No I am saying that there is more capability within the DNA of each creature to produce this sort of thing.

Actually that is all the capability that is needed and all that there is.

It doesn't totally come from natural selection and random mutations.

Random mutation is the raw material and natural selection is the mechanism ... there is nothing more needed.

The fact is for a feature to be selected it has to have a big selection advantage otherwise its just another one of thousands of small non-selectable bits of nothing that get lost in the wash and never become anything.

That is false, even a rather minor advantage is telling.

So for it to be so significant to be selected it has to happen in a big way.

That is incorrect and flies in the face of the finding of the scientific community.

For it to happen in a big way it has to have some help or some inside information.

You appear to be making a series of unsupported claims that do not hold up.

So life has more ability to put together stuff like this in its DNA through a combination of selection of existing genetic info that is stored in the vast amounts of what some say is junk DNA that can be activated and the ability to tap into a lot more genetic info through cohabitation and the environment.

It appears that there is no such thing as "Junk" DNA. That is akin to the old misapprehension that we only use 10% of our brain.

Natural selection does not have that amount of creativity. It may be able to select some refining of existing features but it cannot create such a complete picture through a hit and miss process.

Natural selection (all selection for that matter) is not a creative process, it is just a winnowing.

It will break down and not get past the first couple of blobs or marks.

Another unsupported and incorrect claim.

If it could then we would have seen examples of blobs and marks all over many creatures on their way to creating Picassos. But we don't, we see completed pictures and well-defined shapes and patterns no matter what they represent whether that be for deterring predators or just pretty colours and patterns for mating. If you look at the cuttlefish, it can change its colours, patterns and shape in an instant.

You see what we interpret as "well-defined shapes and patterns" because those features provide greater survival benefit, in these cases, than do "blobs and marks." It should be noted that there are many cryptically colored organisms that feature "blobs and marks."

 

[ArtieE]

No I am saying that there is more capability within the DNA of each creature to produce this sort of thing.

My original post was: "So what you are saying is that a god personally sat down and designed this moth and assembled its DNA so that the moth would look exactly like his design? And this god did that for millions upon millions of species on and off over the course of four billion years?" If not, describe exactly the design and production process and what god designed and produced when...

 

[ArtieE]

Same with the creatures pictured above.....the Designer's 'signature' is on all of them. His style is unmistakable, his use of color and design breathtaking....praiseworthy.

Are you actually trying to make us believe that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms, most of which are extinct now? Or what exactly is it you want us to believe?