But does anybody dispute that God would be able to design? Isn’t the question more whether God exists and if so, in what way did he design? I’m not understanding what problem argument is supposed to solve I guess.
1 Like
3 posts were split to a new topic: Is near-universal common descent detectable?
That’s because it’s a quote mine. As I explained:
That’s not evidence. It’s a series of hand-waves, none of which appear to have anything to do with separate creation of species.
Mutation, drift, and selection.
By noticing the evidence for common descent. Flight feathers, for example, arise in a group of dinosaurs that already had feathers. It’s nested hierarchy, which is evidence of descent, not separate creation.
1 Like
Here is the original post subject.
I would say that the evidence of Design especially in biology is prevalent as I previously argued. We don’t need God to explain reproduction but we very well may need him to explain the origin of reproduction. If the evolution argument backs off all significant origin claims (eukaryotic cell, multicellular, vertebrates etc) then sticking with methodological naturalism is fine.
When you don’t have a counter hypothesis like @Meerkat_SK5 is trying to put forward the theory goes virtually unchallenged and that leads to bad science IMO which is based on circular reasoning.
We know the theory is weak when bogus claims of “no evidence” of an alternative hypothesis surfaces.
Of course its evidence. Genetic information is evidence of special creation. These features require significant amounts of genetic information.
How so? You can’t just make that assertion without a supporting argument. How is it evidence of special creation rather than guided evolution? This is your old blind spot: you are unable to distinguish the origin of species from the origin of mutation.
3 Likes
Is guided evolution just a specific form of special creation? I would argue that it is one possibility.
We are back to to the question is God a useful “scientific” argument. I would say @Meerkat_SK5 has a good case to argue.
No, it isn’t. Special creation involves the separate creation of organisms with no ancestors. If guided evolution were what you argued for, then you wouldn’t be arguing against common descent.
All due respect, you’re in no position to judge. But if it’s true, then why hasn’t he started?
2 Likes
No, that’s why it has the name “guided evolution” instead of “special creation”. One form of “guided evolution” could merely be artificial selection.
No, you wouldn’t. You have yet to argue a single thing. You assert, and declare, and say, and state things. But argue? Never.
You would say a lot, and run away from backing it up. Over and over and over again.
3 Likes
This is the case I argued. I would say you failed to support your claim that.
You are projecting Rum.
I am not, Bill.
You have argued no case, just made claims. You have, however, succeeded in obfuscating what you’re talking about. It is now entirely unclear whether you’re arguing against common descent or just against unguided evolution. This has frequently been the case, that you clarify at one moment and obfuscate the next. Common descent is in accord with the data; separate creation is not. Common descent explains Sal’s flower quite well, for example, while separate creation explains nothing. I’ve shown you some of my own research, at least three separate papers that you just ignore, misunderstand, or confuse with irrelevant objections. Is there any point in talking to you at all?
2 Likes
Rum. Asserting over and over again that evolution is the way it happened and categorically denying evidence of a counter argument is exactly what you are accusing me of.
These are “Rum” meaningless assertions. They are almost in all your posts when you get frustrated. You have spent the last 5 years passionately defending very iffy inferences. I don’t blame you for being frustrated.
John like Rum you are projecting. This is an assertion that you make all the time along with the assertion that there is “no evidence” for the alternative explanation. When you make exaggerated claims you should expect to be challenged.
Another assertion on your part. It does not explain the change in Genetic information between species.
It explains that God seeded separate animals on earth. It tells us where to start doing science. This is @Meerkat_SK5 point. God is a useful hypothesis.
Sure, but the cases aren’t symmetrical. @Rumraket actually presents evidence and an argument to go with it. You present assertions in the place of arguments and irrelevant and/or misunderstood facts in the place of evidence.
No, they’re meaningful assertions. We all know what he means. They don’t come with evidence, but anyone reading (except you) is familiar with the evidence, so there was no need for him to provide any.
What’s exaggerated?
I have on several occasions backed up that assertion with extensive analysis. That little figure I keep posting is the product of such analysis. You consistently ignore it. And once more you confuse common descent vs. separate creation with unguided vs. guided origins of mutations. “Change in genetic information” is not relevant to the question of common descent vs. separate creation.
You can’t even offer a guess as to what was seeded. You can’t identify a single “kind”. And you don’t know what “explain” means in science. Now tell me why all those separate creations form a nested hierarchy.
Does it? Where would that be?
3 Likes
Bill please re-read what you wrote and I responded to. You wrote that you “would argue” - and I point out that you have yet to do so.
To argue something is to provide a line of reasoning that connects premises to conclusions. That you state how something logically implies, or entails, or raises the plausibility and/or probability of a proposition. At least arguing formally in logic. You can also have more verbal arguments. But you haven’t done so anywhere in this thread. You haven’t argued anything. You have just claimed that X is evidence of Y, and when asked to elaborate on HOW it is you just ignore it.
I point this out to you and you respond that I am projecting.
Now in a strong field, that’s the most obviously false thing you’ve stated in this thread so far. This very post of mine is yet another refutation of that statement. This very sentence I am writing is a disproof of the claim. I am the one of us who explains and argue things, and you are the one who projects. Every time.
See how that worked? That’s what arguing and explaining looks like Bill.
So let’s try again: Please ARGUE and EXPLAIN how each of the things you have mentioned by name in this tread consitute evidence for the conclusions you have stated.
The “population genetics math”. Still no reference or explanation.
Sal’s flower. Still no explanation of how it is evidence for special creation.
That list of items you gave with organs and molecular complexes and systems. Still not argument or explanation for how it is evidence for special creation.
Genetic information. Same, no explanation or argument.
You mention things by name (e.g. “genetic information”) - and then declare - as in you just say - it is evidence for special creation. But you don’t explain HOW it is evidence for that. You give no indication of even understanding what evidence is. In fact one of your earlier examples indicated you actually don’t know what evidence is and mistakenly think a limitation to the scope of evidence for one hypothesis A somehow itself constitutes evidence for a competing hypothesis B. And what happened? I explained with an analogy how it is not. I got no response to that. You ignored it.
Please don’t steal my lines. It is wildly inappropriate when they are so inapposite directed back at me by you. 
3 Likes
It does not matter. Genesis is telling us the starting point is if it is correct. We can create models from this point that are coherent as @Joe_Felsenstein has done. Just as physics assumes atoms (and their components) as the starting point.
What model is that?
1 Like
If you read the entire post I have answered why it is evidence for special creation or Gods direct involvement in “kinds”. The gene sets require significant genetic information and that is evidence a mind is involved. God is made in mans image so he is the potential source of that mind.