Evolution is Endlessly Falsified
Transposable elements important in mammalian evolution
HGT plays key role in prokaryote and eukaryote evolution
Genetic regulation drives human evolution
Genetic regulation key in hominid evolution
Genetic regulation drove the evolution of the tetrapods
Genetic regulation important in the evolution of the metazoans
MicroRNA key to the evolution of land plants
Transposable elements and their repressor genes drove human evolution
Retroviruses played a crucial role human evolution
Alternative splicing drove evolution
Behavior drives evolution
A natural genetic engineering toolkit drove evolution
Key gene product evolved from several junk parts
What these various claims have in common is that large molecular structures were important causes of evolution. For example, the human and the chimpanzee have highly similar genes, so they did not evolve to be different by the usual explanation of random mutations modifying the genes. The human and chimpanzee do not differ at the level of the gene. Instead, they differ at higher, more complicated levels, such as in the regulation of those genes, which involves multiple molecular structures.
So evolutionists are forced to conclude that the genes required to build a human serendipitously evolved long before there were humans. After that, all that was needed were some changes to their regulation, and you had humans.
How lucky.
This story of serendipity, as indicated by the sampling of headlines above, has repeated itself over and over. In addition to genetic regulation, evolution was caused by transposable elements and their repressor genes, horizontal gene transfer mechanisms, micro RNAs, alternate splicing, retroviruses, behavior, and natural genetic engineering toolkits.
This is ludicrous. This is absurd. Evolutionists have been forced to make conclusions that are astronomically impossible.
Evolution must have constructed elaborate mechanisms and structures, in advance, which then became crucial agents of evolution, creating all kinds of biological wonders. Simply put, evolution must have created evolution. And in recent years such serendipity in the evolution narrative has skyrocketed. Evolution must have constructed elaborate mechanisms over, and over, and over.
Now, this latest research just adds more serendipity to the evolution narrative. Evolutionists are forced to conclude that a completely unrelated enzyme just happened to be highly similar to the key mitotic spindle protein. All that was required was a single mutation and, behold, the crucial mitotic spindle protein was created.
It would be finding a jet engine inside of clothing factory. Hey, we can use that for airplanes!
The scientific evidence contradicts evolution.
"So evolutionists are forced to conclude that the genes required to build a human serendipitously evolved long before there were humans."
ReplyDeleteThis is not new. We have known for a long time that the heavy lifting for life occurred long before multicellular life arose. The evolution of the different animal life is minor when compared with what preceded it.
Oh I get it! Duh! Evolution and Serendipity are synonyms!
DeleteThis is not new. We have known for a long time that the heavy lifting for life occurred long before multicellular life arose. The evolution of the different animal life is minor when compared with what preceded it.
DeleteLOL. A dirt worshipper plants both feet in his mouth, as usual. The truth is the exact opposite, of course. The combinatorial explosion does not diminish as life becomes more complex. It increases.
Alright, I don't expect anybody who worships dirt as the mother of life to understand such a simple concept. LOL
Mapoo: "The combinatorial explosion does not diminish as life becomes more complex. It increases."
DeleteAre you referring to the combinatirial explosion that does not exist anywhere except in your tiny little mind?
Making up a false roadblock does not make it real. But, I guess that delusions are real for the person thinking them.
LOL. Denying the obvious is the hallmark of stupid dirt worshippers everywhere.
DeleteTell me, dirt worshipper. What the Flying Dirt Monster's asteroid smell like today?
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Yeah, we've heard this song before. The creationist personally rejects the science because of his religious beliefs therefore everything in evolutionary theory if falsified.
ReplyDeleteSays the dirt worshipper who believes that dirt is the mother of life, therefore evolution is true. And the jackass has the nerve to call other people "religious". Go figure.
Deleteahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Of course this again calls to mind Douglas Adams' brilliant analogy of the sentient mud puddle. The puddle is amazed at the serendipity, the blind luck involved in that he finds himself resting in a hole that fits him so exactly. He must be special and God created the shape of the hole just for him. :)
ReplyDeleteI bet Adams shouted "Eureka!" when he came up with that "brilliant" analogy. LOL
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"Douglas Adams' brilliant analogy of the sentient mud puddle."
Trust an evolutionist to come up with the idea of a sentient mud puddle. ;)
The mud puddle was obviously designed to adapt. If he were to find himself suddenly thrust into a different hole he would quickly adapt to the shape of that hole and again, fit perfectly.
Such is the beauty of intelligent design, it can plan for contingencies. :)
Of course, Douglas Adams, like all brain-dead dirt worshippers everywhere, was severely math-challenged. There is no questions that the combinatorial explosion insures that the order of any chaotic system remains at the non-life level.
DeleteDoes anybody in the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster understand exponential math? Obviously not. They're too busy worshipping dirt.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in; fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well! It must have been made to have me in it!’” –Douglas Adams
ReplyDeleteObviously the puddle would be wrong. He fits so neatly into his hole because of physicodynamics alone. No matter what the hole's shape was, the puddle would take on, and the appearance of the hole having been designed just for him would be an illusion. This quote is used to try to answer the apparent fine tuning of our universe to accommodate life.
But the analogy is flawed, and is a rather lousy thing to mention when disputing fine tuning arguments because life’s processes are not the way they are because of physicodynamics. Life cannot adjust its intricacies to accommodate the universe, nor can the way life works be adjusted to fit a multitude of universes of varying physical constants - instead, the universe must be exactly the way it is in order for life to exist at all. To make the analogy correct, imagine if water could only take one particular three dimensional shape and size (with an accuracy down to the atom or better) in order for it to be water at all. If this were the case, and the puddle woke up to find itself in an independent hole that fit its shape and size staggeringly well, then the puddle’s realization would not be an illusion.
Or, what about this scenario:
Imagine a puddle waking up at the bottom of a well in the Sahara, with the walls lined with hewn stone, and the top of the well had a bucket attached to a rope, which was wound around a shaft, which had a crank attached to it. Would the puddle’s inference to design be somewhat more accurate in that case? Yes, it would.
In other words, when people invoke Douglas Adams’s 'brilliant' analogy, they betray their ignorance in actually understanding the real problem of fine tuning for life's existence. And not only theirs, but Douglas Adams’s ignorance as well.
Delete“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, the small cranium of a dirt worshipper." -Me
Deleteahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
I see even a simple analogy is too much for the slow witted Creationists. Life in our universe developed to fit the "fine tuned' parameters of this universe. If the parameters were different we'd get a different form of life that fit those parameters.
DeleteRight now we have a sample set of one universe. Claiming that our one is the only way life could exist is completely unjustified.
Right now we have a sample set of one universe. Claiming that our one is the only way life could exist is completely unjustified.
DeleteLOL. You call this "science", you dirt worshipping moron? Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave at the speed of light.
By the way, how did you superstitious dirt worshippers get a free pass to teach you stupid religion in our schools? Isn't that against the law?
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"If the parameters were different we'd get a different form of life that fit those parameters."
This is not something you know, this is something which you are asserting.
"Right now we have a sample set of one universe.
Exactly, and our experience with that one sample tells us it is finely tuned to support life.
"Claiming that our one is the only way life could exist is completely unjustified."
Making such a claim is based on what we observe, not merely speculation. Claiming life could exist under different circumstances of which we have zero experience is complete speculation. Therefore, claiming life could exist under different conditions is completely unjustified.
Nic
DeleteExactly, and our experience with that one sample tells us it is finely tuned to support life.
In exactly the same way the hole is finely tuned to fit the shape of the puddle.
Dirt worshipper: In exactly the same way the hole is finely tuned to fit the shape of the puddle.
DeleteSo, if the bolts that attach the wheels to my bicycle are perfectly fitted to the threads on the studs, this means that they evolved by random mutations and natural selection?
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
ghostrider,
Delete"In exactly the same way the hole is finely tuned to fit the shape of the puddle."
Except we have experience with many holes and many puddles. I pass hundreds on a given day at this time of year as the ground thaws and the snow melts. Like I said before, nice try.
Nic
DeleteExcept we have experience with many holes and many puddles.
Yep. Each puddle thinks it's the special ONLY puddle and the hole it's in was designed by the Puddle God to fit perfectly just for him. What else could the "fine tuning" of the puddle hole mean?
Ghostrider,
ReplyDeleteThe reason so many of the fine tuning parameters, if only so very slightly different, would preclude the existence of life is because the formation of the universe would be such that the building blocks themselves would not exist (the universe would fly apart or collapse in on itself too fast, stars would either not form or would collapse/burn out too quickly, heavy elements could not form, atoms could not hold together, chemical bonds could not form, etc.). I.e., trying to imagine any kind of life developing when the universe itself is only composed of hydrogen, or collapses back in on itself or dies a heat death within a relatively short duration of time, or is only composed of black holes, makes the prospect pretty bleak for any information bearing capacity at all (and life is all about bona fide organization and functional information). To say that some other form of life could develop is simply not reasonable in the *vast* sea of other possibilities.
Well said. And this is the reason that life is so precious. It is not a random puddle. It is impossible without some sort of pre-existing, nonstochastic design mechanism.
DeleteM. Holcumbrink
DeleteThe reason so many of the fine tuning parameters, if only so very slightly different, would preclude the existence of life
It may preclude life identical to ours. You have no idea if different parameters would preclude a different type life.
To say that some other form of life could develop is simply not reasonable
Reality isn't constrained by your inability to imagine it.
ghostrider,
Delete"Reality isn't constrained by your inability to imagine it."
And your imagination does not equate with reality, nor create it.
This type of reasoning is what brought evolutionary theory to what it is. Evolutionists tend to fall for the delusion, if it can be imagined it must be real. If it can be imagined it must have happened.
I can imagine an omnipotent God who could create the universe and all that is in it by an act of his will. But you don't accept that do you? Why? Because you say there is no proof.
But reality is not constrained by your inability to imagine it, right?
Nic
DeleteThis type of reasoning is what brought evolutionary theory to what it is. Evolutionists tend to fall for the delusion, if it can be imagined it must be real
LOL! Well no Nic. We have colleges and universities and museums and science labs full of evidence for evolution. We have millions of easily accessible on-line scientific research papers detailing the evidence. You could see any of it if your were really interested in learning. But you're not, and that's your problem. Pity.
ghostrider,
Delete"We have colleges and universities and museums and science labs full of evidence for evolution."
There are colleges and universities full of evidence for something, that is true. Evolution is one attempt to explain that evidence, but it is not the only view.
That is another delusion evolutionists tend to fall victim too. The belief that their way is the only way this evidence can be interpreted.
You see, ghostrider, the fact is all the evidence is the same for both views. What differs is the presuppositions put in place to interpret that evidence.
As such, colleges and universities are full of evidence for evolution only in the view of evolutionists.
Nic
DeleteYou see, ghostrider, the fact is all the evidence is the same for both views. What differs is the presuppositions put in place to interpret that evidence.
What really differs is science can explain the evidence in a consilient manner. You can't.
Science can explain why there are no dino fossils above the KT layer. You can't.
Science can explain the patterns in the deep time fossil record. You can't.
Science can explain the patterns seen in the genetic record. You can't.
Science can provide details for the when, where, what, and how questions. You can't.
Science wins.
GR:
DeleteIf any one of a number of parameters were different, there would be no large atoms, or no atoms at all, therefore no chemistry, no life of any kind.
ghostrider,
Delete"What really differs is science can explain the evidence in a consilient manner. You can't."
Yet again you present a delusional view held by evolutionists. This one being the belief Darwinian evolution and science are synonymous. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is just not the case.
"Science can explain why there are no dino fossils above the KT layer. You can't."
Evolution, not science per se, presents its belief as to why there are no (to this point) dino fossils found above the KT layer. Your use of the word 'explain' implies your belief is a known fact. It is not.
"Science can explain the patterns in the deep time fossil record. You can't."
See above response and insert appropriate terms.
"Science can explain the patterns seen in the genetic record. You can't."
See above response and insert appropriate terms.
"Science can provide details for the when, where, what, and how questions. You can't."
Really? Okay, how did life originate, when and where?
Wait for it.
The truth is, ghostrider, is that you live with the delusion that evolutionary theory has provided indisputable answers to questions concerning life and how it came to be as we witness it today. That is simply not the case. All that is being presented is one particular interpretation of the existing evidence.
Blah blah blah lots of gas from Nic, not an explanation is sight.
Deleteghostrider,
Delete"Blah blah blah lots of gas from Nic, not an explanation is sight."
The problem being the only thing you accept as an explanation is one which conforms to your view. It appears you're completely unable to grasp the fact there are other ways to explain the evidence that you believe can only be explained by evolution.
Nic
DeleteIt appears you're completely unable to grasp the fact there are other ways to explain the evidence that you believe can only be explained by evolution.
Yeah, so you've said about 500 times. Problem is you've never provided one of those alternate explanations, not even once.
No Nic, merely saying "design" isn't an explanation. It's a coward's evasion.
ghostrider,
Delete"No Nic, merely saying "design" isn't an explanation. It's a coward's evasion."
Please be honest, if not with me at least with yourself. You know I have not just said 'it's design', I have given you reasons why design is a valid argument. That you do not wish to see them as such does not render them invalid.
Louis,
Delete"I'm ashamed to call myself a Christian seeing that most of you are a bunch of spineless maggots."
To be honest with you, I too am ashamed you call yourself a Christian.
I find your idea of what it means to be a Christian when dealing with those with whom you disagree puzzling to say the least. What do you hope to accomplish by insults and hostility? Though ghostrider, William, et al, and I disagree on this particular subject we are all intelligent, mature adults and prefer to function that way even as we disagree.
You, on the other hand feel it necessary to spew nastiness and hate. Tell me, Louis, which do you think is the better, more mature way to act? Should we treat people with contempt and nastiness or with decency and respect? Which path would Christ ask you to follow?
Nic
DeleteYou know I have not just said 'it's design'
Yes Nic, you have. You claimed it was an explanation all unto itself. Remember when you said this?
Nic: "Design is the explanation. I don't know why people can't grasp that simple idea."
You still can't supply a single detail of this so called "design". Not a single one. I know it, you know it, so stop pretending.
ghostrider,
Delete"Yes Nic, you have. You claimed it was an explanation all unto itself. Remember when you said this?
Nic: "Design is the explanation. I don't know why people can't grasp that simple idea."
Remember when I asked you to be honest? What did I say after that paragraph?
ghostrider
DeleteWhat criteria do you use when you look at something to determine if it was designed or not?
Nic, the spineless, pseudo-Christian:
DeleteWhich path would Christ ask you to follow?
The Master died only once. Once is enough. And he died only for the sins of those who believe. The others can kiss his asteroid.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Louis,
Delete"The Master died only once. Once is enough. And he died only for the sins of those who believe. The others can kiss his asteroid."
I see you don't know your theology. 2 Corinthians explicitly states Christ died for all. Not all will accept his sacrifice but he died for them nonetheless.
As for the rest of your comment, I will not dignify the obscenity with a response other than to say you seriously need counselling. There are some deep anger issues you need to take care of. Please do so and quit subjecting Christianity to your embarrassing childishness.
Nic, the spineless, pseudo-Christian:
DeleteI see you don't know your theology.
Maybe. But I know YOUR theology. It's the theology of a spineless worm.
And talking about obscenity. Did you know that Yahweh once ordered a prophet to go around Israel butt-naked?
Did you also read 2 King 18:27?
But Rabshakeh said to them, "Has my master sent me only to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, doomed to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?"
Except the original Hebrew did not say eat "their own dung and drink their own urine". The Hebrew is very coarse and would offend you spineless, self-righteous sensibilities.
One more thing. Did you know that Genesis did not say, "And Adam knew his wife"? Of course you didn't. English has a 4-letter word that corresponds to the actual Hebrew word used in the original text. You did not know this because you are a spineless, self-righteous, Sunday school Christian.
I have now lumped you with the dirt worshipping evotards. They are just as spineless as you are.
Oops! I forgot to laugh.
Deleteahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
It has been several days of Cornelius condoning and supporting Mapoo's behaviour and st the same time deleting far less offensive comments from evolution proponents.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to get an honest answer from Cornelius? Does he support Mapou's behaviour? Keep in mind that silence is support. This says more about Cornelius than it does about Mapou.
LOL. Whining again, as usual. When all else fails, start crying for your mommy.
DeleteYou don't dictate anything on Cornelius's blog. You're a dirt worshipper, after all. Whatever Cornelius decides, I will abide by.
Stop being a gutless crybaby. Grow a backbone or something, for a change. Maggot.
Thank you for the kind words. Coming from you, I will give your comments all of the attention they are due.
DeleteCan you explain where these comments have been deleted? This blog administrator seems to have a very tolerant attitude towards comments and removes few. When they are removed, they say "Comment removed by blog Administrator." Are you telling me there's a way to remove that a comment has been removed?
DeleteI don't buy that, because it's not true. And if you look in 2012, you'll see numerous of Nic's comments deleted "by a blog Administrator" so it's not to prop up one side or another. It's about a respectful environment to mine quotes from the evolutionist mindset for the future.
Did I do that?
DeleteAre you telling me there's a way to remove that a comment has been removed?
That's exactly what's been happening as I have had posts vanish with no sign they were ever there too. The owner of a Blogger page can do whatever he wants with comments include vanish them without a trace.
The owner of a Blogger page can do whatever he wants with comments include vanish them without a trace.
DeleteLOL
If I were the owner of this blog, I would vanish all of your stupid comments without a trace.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahah...
ghostrider, life is characterized by the storage, retrieval and processing of functional information by highly organized mechanisms which use basic building blocks of material as the carrier. That is indeed the only ‘type’ of life we know of. To talk about carbon based vs. arsenic based life is one thing, but we are talking about whether life can exist without any building blocks whatsoever. No molecules, no atoms, no matter at all even, or maybe not even space itself. It’s easy to see that life as we know it cannot exist without those things, but imagining any other kind of life, that does not involve information processing, is just that – pure fanciful imagination. That is the stuff of science fiction. But, you have helped to swing us back around to the principal claims of Darwinism – fanciful imagination and storytelling. Thank you for putting the conversation back on track.
ReplyDeleteM. Holcumbrink
Deletelife is characterized by the storage, retrieval and processing of functional information by highly organized mechanisms which use basic building blocks of material as the carrier.
Ah, the standard ID-Creationist logic. If I take biological processes and rename them with terms used in human computer and data processing design, then that makes biology be designed too!
You IDiots need a new writer. Your argument by analogy was killed years ago.
The words ‘translation’, ‘error correction’, ‘storage’, ‘retrieval’, ‘processing’, ‘encryption’, storage medium’, ‘mechanism’ (as in ‘machinery’ composed of interacting simple machines such as wheels, axles, ramps, levers), etc. are not metaphor – these are real descriptions of how things work inside the cell. No different in principal than how the holes in mylar tape or a punch card are processed. DNA is packaged machine code, hands down. There is no metaphor to be killed - it’s a proper description. And there’s plenty of folks out there that are entirely convinced of this view (hence, ‘biosemiotics’):
Deletehttp://biosemiosis.org/index.php/bibliography
You sound just like a moron who posts at UD - Uptight Blowhard. He's been pushing this doggy doo argument by analogy for years despite having it be rebutted about a thousand times. UD isn't exactly known for its high level of intellectual discourse.
DeleteDon't mind ghostrider..aka thumpin'thorton,
Deletehe's been banned from this site before, but has managed to hover just under the radar lately.
you're doin' good thumpin', doin' good.
Steve,
DeleteYou mean ghosthumper is thorton the dirt worshipping evotard? Who would have thumped it?
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Hardcore Darwinists are hopelessly irrational and deluded people. They don't want to know the truth, and hence they will never be set free. God bless these poor souls.
ReplyDeleteRE: puddles.
ReplyDeleteIf waled past a bunch of puddles that contained just water, then I passed one that had goldfish in it, I would begin to ask myself why that puddle is so different that it has goldfish.
please visit us bantenplus.co.id http://bantenplus.co.id/
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteLouis Savain: "Nic, the spineless, pseudo-Christian:
I see you don't know your theology.
Maybe. But I know YOUR theology. It's the theology of a spineless worm.
And talking about obscenity. Did you know that Yahweh once ordered a prophet to go around Israel butt-naked?
Did you also read 2 King 18:27?
But Rabshakeh said to them, "Has my master sent me only to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, doomed to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?"
Except the original Hebrew did not say eat "their own dung and drink their own urine". The Hebrew is very coarse and would offend you spineless, self-righteous sensibilities.
One more thing. Did you know that Genesis did not say, "And Adam knew his wife"? Of course you didn't. English has a 4-letter word that corresponds to the actual Hebrew word used in the original text. You did not know this because you are a spineless, self-righteous, Sunday school Christian.
I have now lumped you with the dirt worshipping evotards. They are just as spineless as you are."
Dr. Hunter, I must agree with William and others in regards to Louis. Louis has crossed the decency line a long time ago and nothing has been done.
I have come to the decision that unless he is reigned in I will no longer bother posting my comments. I enjoy my interactions with ghostrider, William, Zachriel and others, but I have simply become fed up with the vulgarity and nastiness continuously spewed by Louis. He is a disgrace, to put it mildly and I think he hurts the credibility of what otherwise is a very fine and enjoyable blog.
Spineless crybaby,
DeleteLOL
You're just like the dirt worshipping evotards. Crying for your mommy when the other guy starts kicking your butt.
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's funny that post is quoted, because I find it the most insightful one from the same thus far, even though it's off topic. The rest, however, are wearisome.
DeleteCould you tell me how you enjoy your interactions with the first person you named in the last paragraph? Because when presented with an argument, it's usually blown off with some disparaging comment.
Did I do that?,
ReplyDelete"Could you tell me how you enjoy your interactions with the first person you named in the last paragraph? Because when presented with an argument, it's usually blown off with some disparaging comment."
I enjoy them because even though we don't agree we are both mature adults and understand the nature of friendly banter. Louis, on the other hand simply likes to hurl insults and be as unpleasant as he can. All that results from that is contempt and disgust. What does that accomplish? He would accomplish more if he was civil and presented logical arguments. However, he chooses to do otherwise.
You enjoy them because you are a pseudo-Christian. You enjoy giving the evotards a forum to proselytize on behalf of their stupid religion.
DeleteYou've been discussing with them for ages. How many have you converted to your little Sunday church sermons? On the contrary, they are using you to convert Christians to their stupid Church of the Flying Dirt Monster. And they are succeeding. Thanks to you.
ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Nic, I really appreciate the support. And I am sure that GR does as well. Unfortunately, I don't expect Cornelius doing anything about it. He has condoned and supported Mapou's behaviour for so long that he would lose face by doing anything now. In fact, if he does anything, I expect him do ban me and GR simply because it is the easiest thing for him to do. I hope that I am mis-reading Cornelius, but I have seen nothing to suggest that I am wrong.
DeleteIt's unclear why probability is valid when choosing between theories, as opposed to testing intra-theory conclusions. This is because probability isn't valid unless the domain is completely random and you know all the possible outcomes. For example, you keep pointing to probability calculations of intra-theory conclusions, such as which specific, existing proteins were the most closely related, claiming they are applicable for choosing between theories. Are you saying you know all the possible outcomes? If so, how?
ReplyDeleteIgnoring that, for the sake of argument, if you're claiming it's astronomically improbable for something to exhibit so much functionality without some kind of "assistance" or "non-spontaneously" (whatever that means), wouldn't that same argument be applicable to something functional enough to "design" that functionality? What is the probability that "assistance" in the form you actually assume it takes, would happen to know exactly which genes would result in just the right proteins that would result in just the right features, at the outset?
IOW, on one hand, you present misrepresentation of evolutionary theory which you reject as being improbable "non-explanation", vs an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm that uses inexplicable means. How is the latter not just as serendipitous, ludicrous and absurd of a conclusion? Let me guess, it's not improbable because you believe that inexplicable mind revealed itself as such, using a infallible, inexplicable means?
Furthermore, for all the objections to evolution on supposed empirical grounds, every designer we've observed has itself been complex, with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials embedded in their complex material nervous systems. IOW, they themselves are well adapted for the purpose of designing things. And we're the one's ignoring what we know about designers? There is no evidence for non-material designers that are themselves not complex and, by the very same argument, would exhibit the same appearance of design. So, all you've done is push the problem up a level without actually improving it.
Scott, yes, they claim that the ID inference is more probable than evolution yet refuse to address what the probability of a designer existing and the probability of the mechanisms that the designer used to realize his design.
DeleteBut they solve the problem by already believing that God exists. With no evidence other than flying priests and the image of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.
William Spearshake aka brian douglas aka Acartia Bogart etc said
Delete"But they solve the problem by already believing that God exists. "
You start by believing in your dumb luck faith.
" With no evidence other than flying priests and the image of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich"
On the contrary, It's just that you foolishly place so much faith in dumb luck, that is all.
When you believe your reasoning faculties are the result of dumb luck then why do you think you have any grounds to talk about the nature of reality?
"William Spearshake aka brian douglas aka Acartia Bogart etc..."
ReplyDeleteaka Tintinnid, Acartia, George Edwards, James Ready, Stenosemella...