Jump to content


Aig's 12 Arguments That Evolutionists Should Avoid


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#21 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:47 PM

My confusion stems from the exact opposite viewpoint, common design is so simple to understand:
two eyes
- does anything exist that has more? less?
- if evolution were true, I would think there would be many examples with one, others with three, four or five.


Spiders have numerous eyes.

Posted Image
Enjoy.

View Post

Thanks for that Jason, I did not know that. Still, it's just another example of the variety of designed, intentional, purposeful eyes.

#22 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2010 - 03:08 PM

They did before it was proven that they didn't.

View Post


Where is that said???

Now you don't believe the eye had to evolve at least 20 different times?

View Post


I'm saying the eyes evolved independently in different groups. That's why there are so many different forms of eyes.

I wasn't aware that truth was some kind of competition. In that case, it is easy to see why empiricism is no longer a part of evolution - there isn't anything left to test and falsify.

View Post


It is a competition. It's why there's peer review. Empiricism is, and always has been, part of evolution along with the rest of science. Just because you can't falsify it, and nobody will let you falsify it from personal incredulity, doesn't mean it can't be falsified. I, and others, have posted several ways it could be falsified, but those aren't accepted because they aren't found even though we species are being discovered every day.


Spiders have numerous eyes.

View Post


So do scallops.
Posted Image

Why is it that ALL mobile creatures have eyes?
(I'm talking about walking, running, type creatures - not worms, slugs.)


Oddly enough we find animals that swim and walk in caves all the time without eyes or eyes that have been reduced to uselessness. Funny, if you're going to design an animal to live in a cave why give it eyes and all if it isn't going to use them.

Why aren't there any fish with real arms?
(and not the so-called "handfish", those are still just fins)


Why would there be fish with arms???

Why aren't there some clawed horses?


Because they have hooves. It's like asking why aren't there any apes with claws. Because they have nails.

Why aren't there mammals with cell walls??? Why aren't there radially symmetrical vertebrates?? Creating creatures willy nilly is something you would expect from intelligent design not common ancestry and natural selection.

#23 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:09 PM

...
So do scallops.
Posted Image

View Post

That's cool.

Oddly enough we find animals that swim and walk in caves all the time without eyes or eyes that have been reduced to uselessness.  Funny, if you're going to design an animal to live in a cave why give it eyes and all if it isn't going to use them.

It is obvious to me that they were not designed to live in caves, they migrated there and adapted to the environment.

If evolution were true, why haven't these animals evolved further to not have these, as you say "useless" parts? They don't serve a purpose, as far as you're concerned, why hasn't evolution "de-selected" these things?

Why is it that evolution can get us to a certain point of efficiency, but when things become unnecessary evolution can't work in reverse?

Can you answer those questions?

If I were an evolutionist, I would predict, using rational and logical thought, that it should be able to work in reverse also.

Maybe these things won't always need to hide away in caves! Ever thought of that? Maybe God designed these things so they could adapt! Maybe when things get better in this world, which is promised, all things can live in peace together - so no more cave dwelling animals. Their eyes will see again - YAY! :D

The lion and the lamb together. The wolf and the lamb eat together. Something like that - ever heard of those passages?

Why would there be fish with arms???

Transitional at the least. Think about it, if a fish did evolve arms with hands and digits, I think they would be selected for by the evo god. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Because they have hooves.  It's like asking why aren't there any apes with claws.  Because they have nails.

Exactly. They've always had hooves, there is no evidence they did not have hooves in the past!

...
Creating creatures willy nilly is something you would expect from intelligent design not common ancestry and natural selection.

I think in the exact opposite of this. :blink:

It is evolution that would be "willy nilly", remember it is random, chance, mutation, non-purpose driven.

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 June 2010 - 08:45 PM

It is obvious to me that they were not designed to live in caves, they migrated there and adapted to the environment.

View Post


Then why did the creator not design things to live in caves like it did for every other niche on the planet?

Exactly.  They've always had hooves, there is no evidence they did not have hooves in the past!

View Post


Then why do they still carry the genes for digits?

#25 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:13 PM

Then why did the creator not design things to live in caves like it did for every other niche on the planet?

View Post

I did not say He did not design "things" to live in caves.

Then why do they still carry the genes for digits?

I don't know that they do, do you know that they do?
Are you suggesting that horses once had something different than hooves?
What evidence do you have that will convince me?

#26 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 June 2010 - 10:22 PM

I don't know that they do, do you know that they do?
Are you suggesting that horses once had something different than hooves?
What evidence do you have that will convince me?

View Post


Well there is the fact that the horse has had it's genome sequenced. The fossil record showing that horse ancestors had toes. The fact that horses have vestigial toes. Need I go on?

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 July 2010 - 02:34 AM

Well there is the fact that the horse has had it's genome sequenced.  The fossil record showing that horse ancestors had toes.  The fact that horses have vestigial toes.  Need I go on?

View Post


Yet these supposed "ancestors" of the horse have totally differeing rib count to one another... It doesn't show a slow progression rather the count of ribs is all over the place...

Also said fossils are found co-existing in the same strata with other forms of the "ancient horse", firstly how did one evolve to the other. Additionally if this is so then we "should" find a plethora of intermediate fossils between these 2 types.... They haven't been found :lol:

Plus the fact that these fossils have been gathered from all over the world, (suggesting that ancient horses could travel at very high speeds or that they were migratory :blink: :lol: ), rather than the one area, where a slow progression can be observed.

#28 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 July 2010 - 08:38 AM

Well there is the fact that the horse has had it's genome sequenced.  The fossil record showing that horse ancestors had toes.  The fact that horses have vestigial toes.  Need I go on?

View Post

If you like, you haven't given me anything convincing.

#29 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 July 2010 - 10:16 PM

I'm saying the eyes evolved independently in different groups. That's why there are so many different forms of eyes.


The bible said that God created many different forms of eyes, many thousands of years before science proved that they couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor.

Isn't that a clear and empirical test of a theories prediction?

Wouldn't evolution predict the opposite; instead of 50-100 common ancestors?

It is a competition. It's why there's peer review. Empiricism is, and always has been, part of evolution along with the rest of science.


Then why did it start with excuses?

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)

"Darwin's book-On the Origin of Species-I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively; with a special chapter on "Difficulties on theory"; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record. Darwin, I think, has been ill-served by the strength of his supporters."
(Lipson, H.S. [Professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK], "Origin of species," in "Letters," New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p.452. Emphasis in original.)

And why is it still without any empirical test, just a revision of the theory because the evidence contradicts it?

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."

(Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience [sic] of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the mesozoic Brachopoda has proved them equally elusive.'
(Dr. Derek V. Ager (Dpt. Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK), 'The nature of the fossil record.' Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol 87(2), 1976, pg 132)

What if what is observed was already predicted by creation? Something that Steven J. Gould had to acknowledge:

"Stasis is data."
(Gould, S. J. (1991), "Opus 200", Natural History, August, p. 16)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
(Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

Just because you can't falsify it, and nobody will let you falsify it from personal incredulity, doesn't mean it can't be falsified. I, and others, have posted several ways it could be falsified, but those aren't accepted because they aren't found even though we species are being discovered every day.


Another pre-cambrian rabbit? LOL

Flowering plants and insects are but just one of many evidences from the geologic column that falsify the theory. Not only are angiosperms and insects found in three different locations in pre-cambrian strata in India, but also in three different countries. Is this and every other observable fact just personal incredulity?

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html







Enjoy.

#30 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2010 - 09:19 AM

They don't serve a purpose, as far as you're concerned, why hasn't evolution "de-selected" these things?

View Post

Given as you claim that they started with vision, and then mutated not to have it, how would you explain the fact they still have eyes?
If you have an explanation, why do you feel that that explanation is incompatible with evolution?

Please think about those questions for at least 20 seconds before reading the below explanation.
Try to understand what you yourself believe, and why, and why you consider it incompatible with evolution.










Evolution takes time.
Until a mutation appears in the population which leaves an example without eyes (or with less expensive eyes) but otherwise healthy, it can't be fixed in the population
(even once it does, there's a chance it won't manage to spread; the higher the advantage bestowed the lower the chance of it not spreading)


#31 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:49 AM

Another pre-cambrian rabbit? LOL

Flowering plants and insects are but just one of many evidences from the geologic column that falsify the theory. Not only are angiosperms and insects found in three different locations in pre-cambrian strata in India, but also in three different countries. Is this and every other observable fact just personal incredulity?

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html


To sum up, from the 19th century until the 1930's people thought that these fossils were out of place.

Modern geologists have said that they aren't.

#32 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 09 July 2010 - 07:12 PM

Given as you claim that they started with vision, and then mutated not to have it, how would you explain the fact they still have eyes?
If you have an explanation, why do you feel that that explanation is incompatible with evolution?

Please think about those questions for at least 20 seconds before reading the below explanation.
Try to understand what you yourself believe, and why, and why you consider it incompatible with evolution.
Evolution takes time.
Until a mutation appears in the population which leaves an example without eyes (or with less expensive eyes) but otherwise healthy, it can't be fixed in the population
(even once it does, there's a chance it won't manage to spread; the higher the advantage bestowed the lower the chance of it not spreading)

View Post

I did answer those questions, in the same post you quoted me from. ;)

#33 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2010 - 09:05 PM

To sum up, from the 19th century until the 1930's people thought that these fossils were out of place.

Modern geologists have said that they aren't.


And we should believe it even though we can go there and see it for ourselves. ;)

#34 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2010 - 02:08 AM

I did answer those questions, in the same post you quoted me from. ;)

View Post

So, your answer is that God designed them to go blind, but not to lose their useless eyes?

If I were programming something to adapt I would ensure it had either working eyes or no eyes.

Why would God design them to adapt to blind eyes, rather than no eyes?

#35 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 July 2010 - 07:15 AM

So, your answer is that God designed them to go blind, but not to lose their useless eyes?

If I were programming something to adapt I would ensure it had either working eyes or no eyes.

Why would God design them to adapt to blind eyes, rather than no eyes?

View Post

Those questions are answered also. ;)

#36 evad

evad

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 10 July 2010 - 07:45 AM

It is evolution that would be "willy nilly", remember it is random, chance, mutation, non-purpose driven.

Natural selection is not random.

#37 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 July 2010 - 09:45 AM

Natural selection is not random.

View Post

Gee, thanks for that! :blink:

MUTATIONS ARE!

#38 Guest_Ben_*

Guest_Ben_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2010 - 11:00 AM

Regardless of whether mutations are or not, selection isn't - which essentially means the net process isn't random.

Say you toss a few million coins and select only the ones that come up heads (consider these 'non-detrimental/beneficial mutations'). Although the result of each individual coin toss is (for argument's sake) random, the net result isn't.

Same with mutation/selection. Although each mutation is essentially random, natural selection means the process as a whole isn't. So it doesn't particularly matter that the individual mutations themselves are random.

#39 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 July 2010 - 11:50 AM

Regardless of whether mutations are or not, selection isn't - which essentially means the net process isn't random.

Say you toss a few million coins and select only the ones that come up heads (consider these 'non-detrimental/beneficial mutations'). Although the result of each individual coin toss is (for argument's sake) random, the net result isn't.

Same with mutation/selection. Although each mutation is essentially random, natural selection means the process as a whole isn't. So it doesn't particularly matter that the individual mutations themselves are random.

View Post

If any part of the process is random, the whole is the same.

Anything else would have intelligence involved, which is what I believe anyway. God created things with the ability to adapt, which is not random at all.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2010 - 12:04 PM

If any part of the process is random, the whole is the same.

Anything else would have intelligence involved, which is what I believe anyway.  God created things with the ability to adapt, which is not random at all.

View Post

I like the fact that Ben had to say that 'for arguments sake' the coin toss is random. Since even he acknowledges randomness is not a reality. All things are non-random.

However, Godless evolution is the worship of dumb luck.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users