Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

Design

(George) #421

@greg

It took you all these words to say it is okay for god to have deployed millions of fossils og creatures that never ever lived… in order to give humanity a false belief in Old Earth ?


#422

If you had never read the Bible and it was totally unknown to you, what evidence would lead you to the conclusion that humans and chimps were separately created?


(Greg) #423

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:422, topic:3626”]
you had never read the Bible and it was totally unknown to you, what evidence would lead you to the conclusion that humans and chimps were separately created?
[/quote

Christian faith is established upon the soil of ones soul that there must be more than physical existence that explains how it started. We see creation and recognize the sensibility of the existence of a Creator. From there one must consider that perhaps the Creator communicated with His creation. Thats when one can review the options. Could God be behind the idea of blowing oneself up to be rewarded w a herem of virgins in heaven? Or reincarnation? Or much better an answer to the obvious ills in the nature of man as seen riddled across the news. The Christian God answers to the problem of entropy and the problem of human ill, and it defines a God that gives no credentials in man for high profitting monetarily or for personal vainglory. This is the antithesis of every other religion on the planet.

Unfortunately, there are many voices which misrepresent the Christian faith. I have 3 fingers pointing back at me! By His grace i proceed and get better. We are all in the same boat, just sinners who God loves so much that He sent His Son to extend grace and forgiveness. He took the punishment we deserved. That is great news.

So ultimately, to answer your question, Christian faith is not ultimately formed by observations of nature, but comes from revelation from God through prophets who predicted Jesus life death and resurrection and who explained that this act was out of love of God on our behalf.


#424

That really didn’t address my question. What I am asking is what evidence would lead someone to conclude that chimps and humans were created separately if they had never read Genesis or heard of christian beliefs?


(Greg) #425

If one has not faith in God, then i believe there is little to thwart the idea that we evolved fr a chimplike creature. Look at all of the items that a person who puts God out of site that make them consider the relationship of men to monkeys…genetic similarities, how we both dont sythesize vitamin c and others. Once darwin put the thoughts about evolution fr apes into the minds of man, man in a nature that tends to want to be maker of his own destiny gladly absorbs an evolutionary worldview bc this keeps God at bay.

I have also read articles on evolution news that human chimp differences are greater than some want to suggest. I cannot remember the details…things like 2 extra chromosomes in apes, and other technical terms that point to rather startling human chimp differences that evolutionists tend to want to overlook.

And i personally cannot understand how evolutionists propose evolutionary jumps…why in the world is that every human being on this planet is 99% alike…I would expect more hybrid human chimp types scattered across this planet. Evolutionist insist that evolution jumps species fr one level to the other yet the evolution we see such as the galapagos finches is gradual. The idea of God creating “kinds” seems more reasonable than evolution running rampant that should blur the lines of species differentiation.

Call on kurt wise for this question as he would be better able to explain in a scientifically astute way an answer to your question.

If you are not a Christian, i will never demand that you deny chimp human relationship directly because it is stupid. Instead, i would encourage you to consider the unreasonableness of the idea that selection of mutations to complexity is more faith and less objective science and then encourage to a faith in God who transcends nature who tells us that humans were created in His image and who recreates us even after we damaged ourselves as His image bearer when we sin against Him…


#426

That’s the opposite question to the one I am asking.

I am asking what would lead a person to believe that chimps and humans were created separately if they knew nothing about the Bible or Christian theology?

How could a mere mortal keep God at bay? Also, how does following the evidence keep God at bay?

They misuse methods to get a lower number. It is this type of behavior that gives ID/creationists a bad name. You seem to be from the Dr. Wise school of thought and don’t want to promulgate bad arguments. Well, this is one of them. If you want to discuss the specific problems with those articles feel free to start a new thread and the Geek Squad at PS can break it down for you.

They don’t.

For the same reason that two Frenchmen will sound more alike than two Italians, even though both languages descended from Vulgar Latin, their common ancestral language.

Nope, they make no such claim.

You haven’t given me a good reason as to why it is unreasonable.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #427

Wind the clock back 500 years, and it is easy to see an answer. Humans are just so different than apes. It is hard to imagine a relationship without an immense amount of additional information that we now take for granted.


(George) #428

@scd

Firstly, how does this help you at all? 100,000 years is quite a bit before Eden’s supposed time, right?

Secondly, this article has been read, digested and trashed… it was a sloppily run study that was looking at how many species survived the last ice age… there were 8 of them in the last 800,000 years.

They rushed to reach a dramatic conclusion, and they paid a heavy price in credibility.


#429

I don’t know about that . . .

That’s not 500 years ago, but it is pre-Darwin.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #430

You are misreading him. We are “rational animals”. There is a big discontinuity in “rational”.


#431

That is a debate of a different sort, one probably left alone for now.


(Greg) #432

You prob believe in naturalistic universal common decent evolution. As a scientist, you will take evidence and conform it to that worldview. When you see the pieces of the puzzle of life in our dna/genetic code that seem to fit your belief, then of course you will gladly grab hold of those and run w them and even take those pieces and form computer analysis to bolster what you believe. Garbage in garbags out.The input into the computer program will tend to bolster the pre conceived thinking. That is exactly what kurt was explaining in the discourse called mt everest-design or creation.

Hang w me a minute more- im getting to your point.

If i as a creationist help to provide the overlooked evidence that universal common decent is not quite as factual as some want to believe with the evidence that behe provides, jeanson w AIG suggests, Wise on the fossil record etc etc etc, those number of monkey wrenches thrown into the naturalistic evolution machine could be enough to convince one that universal common decent is still in the hypothesis stage and that just perhaps an Intelligent being created kinds w adaptation qualities.

It is then and only then that one can be possibly be swayed to at least consider that monkeys and men are not related in an evolutionary tree. Until then, there is no convincing an evolutionist that they are not related. In fact, if a theistic evolutionist put one foot in universal common decent evolution then told me that but God created man unique outside the tree, if i were an agnostic, id run away fr that so fast…just the average seeker church philosophy garbage that guys like me see right through and the naive just accept but never become really maturing in life.

I have read so much of the science and put as much unbiased rational thought possible into considering any validity of nature taking average mutations like we see in the real world to make bio machines and for the life of me, just dont believe the mechanisms shrouded by lofty language are enough to explain this natural universal common decent. I have chosen not just to read you guys, but yecs, oecs, id camp, mainstream texts etc.

You want me to focus,on man monkey evol. I believe that the neo darwinian version is a big load that when convinced as i am, will give cause for reconsidering relationship betw man and monkey.

Sorry, that is,what i got for ya. Not the point you were prob trying to make im sure


#433

Then how in the world are we supposed to determine if anything is true?

The way I usually test an idea is figure out what I should see if that idea is true, and then see if the observations match the idea. Isn’t that how you do it?

But you just said that we can’t have a hypothesis. We aren’t even allowed to consider if evolution is true because as soon as we consider evolution our mind is poisoned, or something crazy like that. You have actually described hypothesis testing as garbage in, garbage out.

Also, Behe claims that IC systems can’t evolve. It is a claim. Claims aren’t evidence. The first step you need to take is understand the difference between claims and evidence.

Start with a comparison of a human and chimp gene, and then show me how the known processes of mutation and selection could not produce the differences we see between those genes. If you have an unbiased conclusion, then I am more than open to seeing it applied to some real data.


#434

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#435

What do you mean by “neo-Darwinism”?


(Greg) #436

Not what i meant. The garbage statement is not to judge the morality of evolutionism- it is to suggest that when one makes accessments about our very reality that, for example, disallow intelligence, then the essence of the data or the cherry picked data that assumes naturalism inputted into the program will inevitably spit out a proportionate outcome that matches the essence. Garbage in garbage out.

First show me the processes of mutation and selection that evolved monkeys fr aeomebas. I have seen all of the various thoughts on this and for the life of me, the universal naturalistic model is bewilderingly anti intellectual gobity gook. If im right and it is absolutely true that naturalistic universal is a farce, this means that all of a sudden One enters the room. I believe that One to be the very God and Creator in scripture. If He is in the room, then i will warn you of mentioning to Him that you think that we are evolved monkeys. Read Job 38 sometime. Jobs friends gave a lot of banter about what they thought was right and used really intelligent sounding and sometimes theologically correct language to bolster their claim. Then God steps into the scene and read for yourself His response.

The God i worship is not the joel osteen version. He is the version in Job 38


(George) #437

@T_aquaticus

[Per another thread: See what I mean… some atheists just don’t want to listen.]


#438

Let me suggest that you employ the search engine provided by Google.


#439

I am not asking what I think it is. I am asking what you think neo-Darwinism is.


#440

Sorry. I took your question to indicate that you didn’t know what Neo-Darwinism is.