UppsalaDragby
New Member
- Feb 6, 2012
- 543
- 40
- 0
Just as I pointed out, you are in no position to make demands unless you have fulfilled those demands yourself. The fact that both more digits, less digits, and the same number of digits can be considered "valid" pretty much nullifies your claims.River Jordan said:If you're going to offer "design" as a scientific alternative, then it falls on you to explain it and present it's supporting evidence. It certainly isn't on me to support your arguments.
In other words, I am asking YOU to support YOUR arguments, not MINE!
Since the "specific mechanism and pathway" is merely assumed after the fact it doesn't hold any weight at all. Anyone can pretend that there is a specific mechanism and pathway that would explain either loss, gain or stasis or the number of digits. So what you said above is irrelevant.As I explained earlier, it's the specific mechanism and pathway by which organisms gain and lose digits. If it were what you described above, then you would have a point. Since it's not, what you said above is irrelevant.
Alternative to what? Creation by nothing? Why are you constantly trying to shift the burden on me when it is quite obvious that you haven't provided a single minute shred of evidence, or even the slighest explanation that creation could have been been possible without God. And since you too are a believer then I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you trying to say that God did NOT create the universe?So your alternative is supernatural creation by God. Can you explain how that alternative can be investigated using science?
Well, aren't you the one that claimed that "tetrapods descended from fish" in an attempt to "validate" evolution? But OK, you fill in the blanks "...., therefore evolution".. or "..., therefore UCA.Again, if anyone had argued "we can classify them, therefore evolution" you'd have a point. But since I specifically said the opposite, I'm not sure who you think your point is for. And again, appealing to imaginary hypotheticals is not compelling.
And for the trillionth time I am not saying that you are!!! What in the text you quoted caused you to start shouting???Wow. For what feels like the billionth time....I'M NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE CREATION BY GOD. So you can stop asking me "How do you know they weren't designed that way".
You were the one that pointed out the fact that there are biological patterns and structures as though the ONLY explanation for the things you pointed out. I simply pointed out an alternative explanation for the existence of these biological structures without saying anything about whether or not you were trying to disprove creation by God. Get it? So please try to get a grip on yourself and simmer down.
No, don't be so utterly silly. I already pointed out that structureless blobs exist, so the fact that you are you even asking that question seems to indicate you are either not paying attention, or purposely trying to distort and twist my words around. Obviously, just as I think I pointed out, if everything in the universe was structureless, messy, and unfathomable then one would have good reason to question whether or not anything was the result of an intelligent designer, which is what I pointed out in response to your question. The mere existance of structureless blobs does not nullify my argument because structure would only be necessary where required.Are you saying that God couldn't create a "structureless blob"?
world·view (wûrldvy)What I pointed out is that if your claim (it all comes down to worldviews) were true, then we would expect all "evolutionists" to be very similar in their worldviews. The fact is, we see the exact opposite. "Evolutionists" come from pretty much every worldview out there. Now to explain this to you again....I'm not saying "evolutionary scientists come from diverse worldviews, therefore evolution is valid". I'm saying "evolutionary scientists come from diverse worldviews, therefore the argument that their acceptance of evolution is based on worldview is false".
I hope you are able to grasp the difference.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Nowhere in the definition of wordview is there any indication that it is confined to one religious, or non-religious belief, and neither is there any indication that a mixture of such beliefs nullifies it from being a worldview.
Used where?What "worldview" do you think is being used here?
Well boo hoo hoo... I certainly didn't ask you to waste any time, just as I didn't ask you to spit out about fifty lines of evo-babble! If you want to discuss specific points then do so in a manner that is easily discussed, rather than just dump out heaps of dogmatic statements and expect me to meticulously sift through them and go to the tedious trouble of providing creationist answers to all of them. You don't want to waste time? Then neither do I!Great....so that was a complete waste of my time. I spent all that time doing exactly what you asked, and you respond with "It's just dogma, and I didn't really read it anyways"?
I hope you understand why I won't do anything like that for you again.
You do what ALL proponents of evolution do. You read the dogma presented by one side and then you think you know it all. There are countless issues in this debate, and yet all you do is present the doctrine of your belief system as though that was the only "valid" explanation for what we see. I see very little evidence that you have the slightest clue as to what creationists have to say about the things you listed in your post. So if YOU can't be bothered reading up on what they say concerning these things, then don't whine on about what I need to read and "study".
My conviction, of course, is that God "made it" the way he said he did in Genesis, which includes creation of life in separate families. So what's the problem?So your response is basically "God made it that way", just as I said from the outset.
Oh no no no! Please don't distort things here. I asked you for data, not the dogmatic evolutionist interpretation of that data!I spent all that time writing up a layperson friendly description of some of the data....at your request
???????????????????????????????????????????"Yeah, well why can't you explain the evolutionary history of tetrapods to me, with all its supporting data, and in a way that I can understand without doing any work?"
Who on earth are you quoting here?
Oh.... I see,... in order for you to get your point across you need to pretend I said something I didn't.
What I ACTUALLY asked was this:
"What data? No one is denying any data here. When, however, you interpret data through a certain worldview then what point is there in appealing to "data"?"
In other words, what data can you provide that supports your argument and is not dependent on a worldview (you know, "the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world")?
I hope you are able to grasp the difference!
Since we have already been through that discussion before, my only conclusion is that you are repeating that question in order to perpetuate a silly strawman.So what do you think is going on in evolutionary biology then? Are these scientists just really bad at their jobs?
What an incredibly evasive answer! I didn't ask you whether or not we knew, and I didn't even mention scripture.We don't know; scripture doesn't say. But it does say God created organisms by letting the earth bring them forth.
I asked you what you think God did and whether or not he was involved.
It's a simple question, so why are you trying to dodge it.
Do you believe God was involved in creating the universe or not?
Did he say he "let" it happen, or did he create it?