Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

Design

#141

If there were facts that supported the evolution of a watch then I would conclude that the watch evolved. That’s all I was saying.

Are you saying that you would never conclude that evolution occurred even if the facts supported it?


#142

but this is the problem: evolution (and i talking about common descent here) isnt a fact but a belief.


#143

Evolution is a scientific theory that is backed by mountains of facts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


#144

so prove me that human and banana are related. choose your favorite evidence and i will show you why its base on belief.


#145

Humans and bananas are found in the same statistically supported phylogeny which is evidence for common ancestry. The statistically significant phylogeny is a fact, not a belief.


(Arthur Hunt) #146

One loose end I thought I would tend to, even though the discussion has strayed.

I do not think so. I think you are putting words in the mouths of Liu and Ochman.


(George) #147

@scd

What is the point in disputing the existence of design with Agnostics and Atheists?

Pro-Evolution Christians believe God designed all life… and the ones here support the idea that God used Special Creation AND Evolution to create those designs!


(Mikkel R.) #148

I’m sorry but no, that’s not a fact. The fact that some watches were designed does not prove that any imaginable watch has to be designed. It just doesn’t follow.


#149

ok. so a (self replicating) watch can evolve naturally according to evolution.


#150

The sun’s shadow is a watch. Tides are a watch. The phase of the moon is a watch. The first watches used by humans were found in nature.


(Dan Eastwood) #151

@Argon beat me to it. Anything casting a sun-shadow can be used as a sundial. We also see examples of circadian rhythms, which are a natural sort of living clock.


#152

we actually talked about somehing like this:


#153

@gbrooks9, what is the difference between that and Intelligent Design?


(George) #154

When Christians spoke about God as creator of the Universe BEFORE ID was a formal entity… THAT is the topic of Creation… without the poisonous content of I.D.


#155

What about the poisonous content of Creationism, does that not also concern you?


(George) #156

@Mung

If Creationism itself was toxic, how could Joshua write a whole book about Adam and Eve conceivably being made by means of the Special Creation of god?


#157

I love your reasoning, but I’m not sure Joshua appreciates your worship of him. And scientists write stupid and toxic books all the time so that’s really not a defense.


(George) #158

@Mung

If you love my reasoning… you should have ended your post with that thought .

Discussing God as the designer of the Cosmos is OBVIOUSLY not the same as discussing the premises of I.D.

If they were the same, there would not have been a need to invent the term I.D. (!!!).

Postscript!:
If YOU oppose special Creation so adamantly, what are you doing at PeacefulScience.Org?


#159

It was sarcasm. Joshua believes it, therefore it cannot be bad, is simply absurd.

Why not call the site Peaceful Creationism, more in keeping with what it is really about?


(George) #160

@Mung

My apologies… I totally missed your sarcasm font.

My reference to Joshua’s work is not because I am defending the principle of “If Joshua believes it, it cannot be bad”.
No. That would be silly.

I reference Joshua’s work because, unlike you apparently, I am here to ADVANCE Joshua’s work. While a great many of our colleagues here seem more intent on hijacking the discussion machinery (dedicated to the question of how much Special Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the Biblical scenarios) - - so they can discuss Evolution-without-God, or Scientific-Proof-of-Design, or a whole host of other topics that do not advance the work of this site, but actually further entrench the polarized discussions we have all participated in for the last 2, 5, 10 or 50 years!

Calling it Peaceful Creationism is not really the point, wouldn’t you agree? If we advance both Special Creation AND Evolutionary processes as methods of creation used by God, using the term “Creationism” would either be deceptive or off-point. This site is just as much about including scientific evidence in Biblical discussion as discussing miraculous creation as part of understanding the emergence of humanity into the historic (i.e., written) epochs!