Originally posted by lord xyz
so the similarities are in design. And the biological evidence supporting this evolutionary 'fact' is also wrong?
This is my problem with evolution, they present the speculated conclusion first and then provide their facts without showing any solid observations. I can't find one claim that isn't infested with mere speculations.
Originally posted by lord xyz
but they're saying the same thing that "evolution is wrong" and "the world and EVERYTHING has been designed"
No they are not saying the samething, when have I posted the claims that the earth is 10,000 years old or that evolution is wrong?
I've simply said I disagreed with evolution and that alot things don't add up.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneyou want a claim? Okay,
This is my problem with evolution, they present the speculated conclusion first and then provide their facts without showing any solid observations. I can't find one claim that isn't infested with mere speculations.
here. Similarities in limbs between species, as in they're all from the same thing. Now things change, they change, so the weren't always like that, and sinse they're similar, you could say they came from similar traits. For Eg.
Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French are all similar languages, and came from Latin.The variation in Latin however due to new words, slang and other differences in the language can change it into languages like French and Spanish.
Descendance, my friend. Descendance.
Originally posted by lord xyz
you want a claim? Okay,here. Similarities in limbs between species, as in they're all from the same thing. Now things change, they change, so the weren't always like that, and sinse they're similar, you could say they came from similar traits.
.
Here we go again.
The similarity in structures does not prove that these structures are "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor) that is again speculation there isn't any fossil evidence to suggest so.
humans and The Octopus are to extremely different structures yet share similar eye structure between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even darwinist try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor .In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, in their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs. However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions. And this shows that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception.
However, the interpretation they put forward is completely invalid. Because organs which they have to consider "analogous" sometimes bear such close resemblance to one another, despite being exceedingly complex structures, that it is totally inconsistent to propose that this similarity was brought about thanks to coincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim, then how is it that a humans eyes can emerge by the very same coincidences?
According to the theory of evolution, wings emerged independently of each other four times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and flying mammals (bats). The fact that wing with very similar structures developed four times-which cannot be explained by the mechanisms of natural selection/mutation. The discovery which really overthrew homology is that organs accepted as "homologous" are almost all controlled by very different genetic codes. As we know, the theory of evolution proposes that living things developed through small, chance changes in their genes, in other words, mutations. For this reason, the genetic structures of living things which are seen as close evolutionary relatives should resemble each other. And, in particular, similar organs should be controlled by similar genetic structures. However, in point of fact, genetic researchers have made discoveries which conflict totally with this evolutionary thesis.
Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs
Originally posted by The Omega
Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in mathematical or scientific terms and backed by what seems to be scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
Just like with Creationism ID commits the fallacy of thinking, that IF they can find any weakness in evolution (which they can't) that somehow prooves ID.
I can NEVER prove claim A by disproving claim B.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneSo if I find a car I'm going to assume it was not designed because I don't know the designer?
with a little bit of investigation you can prove it was designed though...cant do that with the universe can you
And again an organism can't gain something that is not in it's genomes
all genetic information that determines phenotype are made from the same 4 bases....its just the order that changes
you change the order to something that codes for a new and previously unseen phenotype...you get a new trait...
Originally posted by Blue nocturneno, you posted how ID came about and who made it up. Then again, I don't believe you because you likely got this from a nutter on the internet. I'm looking fr evidence okay, if ANYONE could actually make people go from Evo to ID using facts and evidence, you'd get a nobel prize. Then again, why would you want that when I have clearly become your favourite member on KMC. And you LOVE to talk to me, (and every other member on KMC seeing as everyone knows I'm right and you're a ****ing moron,) about your crap, I guess you've made a smart choice.
I just posted it.
So since you DIDN'T POST IT, (which I have just demonstrated, (I hope you know that,))...
Originally posted by lord xyz
[b]WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SAYS WE ARE ALL DESIGNED BY ONE DESIGNER? [/B]
Originally posted by Blue nocturneThis is a lie, I was the only person you were talking to at the time.
I've been replying to so many people excuse me if I forget.
Oh and...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution = Intelligent Design