First Prev
of 2
Next Last
defender

United States

#22 Mar 16, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not weakened by complexity.

On the contrary, evolution both predicts and explains complexity, and does so according to some tight constraints that we find are validated in the fossil record and the genome research.
You find nothing validated in the fossil record... One can date a year dead chicken back two million years and then have some sketch artist sell it to scientific American only to be believed by you gents who would then in turn defend it till death...Genome research has presents more questions than answers every day yet somehow you claim a victory in this area and complexity of life AND symbiotic systems of life don't weaken evolution but rather strengthen ID...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#23 Mar 17, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You find nothing validated in the fossil record... One can date a year dead chicken back two million years and then have some sketch artist sell it to scientific American only to be believed by you gents who would then in turn defend it till death...Genome research has presents more questions than answers every day yet somehow you claim a victory in this area and complexity of life AND symbiotic systems of life don't weaken evolution but rather strengthen ID...
One thing the genome supports unequivocally is the nested hierarchy, the same one as we see in the fossil record.

And as the rest of your post is merely a hollow effort at discrediting the genuine work of thousands of scientists with some cheap pastiche fantasy, I will leave you to your delusions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24 Mar 17, 2014
defender wrote:
First off Behe hasn't even scratched the surface of complexity...
Correct.

That's because he's done zip.

And now he's touring the church circuit instead of doing "ID research".
defender wrote:
Now speaking of experiments I'd love to see one (and not one of these fly by night wannabes that kong loves to believe) that demonstrates one kind of species morphing into a completely different organism... Something that is claimed by you nut jobs but never been observed... Know why?
Yup. Because you rubes don't understand the concept.(shrug)

You want dog giving birth to a cat. Bacteria giving birth to a giraffe. It doesn't work like that. But what we DO observe is DNA changes in each generation which accumulate. So it's a fairly simple matter to count them up and determine how closely related we are to other organisms. I've provided you the linky to debunk again and again and again.

You can't.

Neither can any other fundie.

Know why?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#25 Mar 17, 2014
defender wrote:
You find nothing validated in the fossil record...
Of course we do.

That's why evolution is the only thing that makes successful predictions BASED on the fossil record. It's WHY Darwin is famous. He predicted transitionals. We found them. Lots.

It's not because he made a prediction, got it wrong, then all the scientific conspiracy decided to pretend otherwise.
defender wrote:
One can date a year dead chicken back two million years and then have some sketch artist sell it to scientific American only to be believed by you gents who would then in turn defend it till death...Genome research has presents more questions than answers every day yet somehow you claim a victory in this area
That's because, while new questions can and do arise, the info we get STILL supports common ancestry.

Find us a cactus with the DNA of a cat then evolution is in trouble. Until then we still expect DNA configurations to match nested hierarchies which is indicative of common ancestry.
defender wrote:
and complexity of life AND symbiotic systems of life don't weaken evolution but rather strengthen ID...
How so? Who or what is the designer? What did it do? Where did it do it? When did it do it? What mechanisms did it use to do whatever it is you think it did? How can we tell these things?

Once you can answer these questions then you'll have something. But as you pointed out, even Behe can't because he hasn't bothered to come up with a testable "theory" in the first place. This is why the science community doesn't take ID seriously.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 31 min Dogen 581
How would creationists explain... 37 min Dogen 367
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr deutscher Nationa... 133,081
Science News (Sep '13) 9 hr positronium 2,938
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 12 hr Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web