Is intelligent design continuing?

No its a possible example of it. You haven't seen Tikktalic evolve into homosapien, all you have seen is evidence that suggests it does.
You haven't seen Jesus rise from the dead. All you have seen is very low grade and unconvincing evidence for it. The evidence that a species similar to, but not necessarily Tiktaalik, evolved, via a great many intermediate steps, into homo sapiens, ir overwhelming. Certainly more convincing than that for the resurrection.

Still, what is your pint? You accept evolution so why are you being contrary? Is this one of your petty vendetta?
 
It isn't proof of evolution. It is an example of it.

It isn't proof of evolution. It is an example of how it works.
I agree, it isn’t proof of evolution. What it is proof of is that humans were created with immensely vast and versatile adaptation capabilities which is common throughout living organisms
Individuals don't evolve. That's pokemon, not science. A species of reptile evolved into a species of mammal, over a long period of time.
There it is, magic disguised as a long period of time.
This change can be observed in the fossils of early reptiles and early mammals.
Except it doesn’t. Crocodiles are pretty much the same as they were a supposed 200 million years ago. All you have in the fossil record are a lot of different types of animals that have similarities but are not the same. Many of those animals still exist today.
It can also be observed in the DNA of extant reptiles and mammals, which show similarities and differences which can be plotted to show how long ago the two branches split.
It just shows similarities but it doesn’t prove they evolved from a common ancestor, that’s the fabricated story. A common intelligent designer also supports the similarities/differences.
Unsurprisingly, the two separate types of evidence come to the same conclusion. If you want definitive detail, Google is your friend.
Nope, the evidence doesn’t come to that conclusion, your interpretation along with assumptions and false information (whale hipbone) of it does.
You just don't understand what evolution is. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. Semi-aquatic mammals such as otters evolved from dog-like species that spent more and more time hunting in water. Those individuals best suited to this niche, reproduced more.
Today’s otter are descendants from otters that live a supposed 7 million years ago. In that supposed 7 million years the most drastic change is that they are a lot smaller but that is only assuming that smaller ones didn’t already exist then.
This process continued over many generations. Present day whales evolved from a hoofed animal like a deer, though probably carnivorous, through a similar process.
Whales did not come from hoofed animals lol. Your imagination is quite wild my friend. The is no proof of this.
Whales of course, fully embraced the aquatic lifestyle. All that is left now of the original land animal are the vestigial hip bones.
Wait, vestigial hip bones is your proof?? Sorry, wrong again. That bone which is found in whales and dolphins is actually very useful for mating purposes.

Maybe some scientists should put some more work in and actually try to figure out the use of something unknown before declaring it proof of their unsupported, presuppositional origin fable.
 
I agree, it isn’t proof of evolution. What it is proof of is that humans were created with immensely vast and versatile adaptation capabilities which is common throughout living organisms

There it is, magic disguised as a long period of time.

Except it doesn’t. Crocodiles are pretty much the same as they were a supposed 200 million years ago. All you have in the fossil record are a lot of different types of animals that have similarities but are not the same. Many of those animals still exist today.

It just shows similarities but it doesn’t prove they evolved from a common ancestor, that’s the fabricated story. A common intelligent designer also supports the similarities/differences.

Nope, the evidence doesn’t come to that conclusion, your interpretation along with assumptions and false information (whale hipbone) of it does.

Today’s otter are descendants from otters that live a supposed 7 million years ago. In that supposed 7 million years the most drastic change is that they are a lot smaller but that is only assuming that smaller ones didn’t already exist then.

Whales did not come from hoofed animals lol. Your imagination is quite wild my friend. The is no proof of this.

Wait, vestigial hip bones is your proof?? Sorry, wrong again. That bone which is found in whales and dolphins is actually very useful for mating purposes.

Maybe some scientists should put some more work in and actually try to figure out the use of something unknown before declaring it proof of their unsupported, presuppositional origin fable.
Biology and evolution is clear on what would break evolution; the most famous is Haldane's rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian rock layer.

Given that, is there any pattern or combination of characteristics of organisms and fossils that you would put beyond the capabilities of your intelligent designer? That is, what conceivable evidence might we find - fossils, or DNA, or geographic distribution, etc. - that would cause you to say, "OK, now, *that* could not have been the work of an intelligent designer!" whether or not there is any practical possibility of ever seeing that evidence. Can you conceive of what that evidence would look like? And, what is the rationale for putting that beyond the capabilities of an intelligent designer?
 
I agree, it isn’t proof of evolution. What it is proof of is that humans were created with immensely vast and versatile adaptation capabilities which is common throughout living organisms
Sorry, you are mistaken.
There it is, magic disguised as a long period of time.
Nope. Your side needs magic. Evolution just needs time. There is plenty of time.
Except it doesn’t. Crocodiles are pretty much the same as they were a supposed 200 million years ago. All you have in the fossil record are a lot of different types of animals that have similarities but are not the same. Many of those animals still exist today.
Crocodiles are successful because they are very well adapted to the niche they occupy in the environment. Evolution works to make animals more fit for their environment. There is very little improvement that could take place for crocodiles, so evolution is very slow for them.
It just shows similarities but it doesn’t prove they evolved from a common ancestor, that’s the fabricated story. A common intelligent designer also supports the similarities/differences.
Your sources are lying to you again.
Nope, the evidence doesn’t come to that conclusion, your interpretation along with assumptions and false information (whale hipbone) of it does.

Today’s otter are descendants from otters that live a supposed 7 million years ago. In that supposed 7 million years the most drastic change is that they are a lot smaller but that is only assuming that smaller ones didn’t already exist then.
Sure. They are well adapted to their current environment, which favours smaller individuals.
Whales did not come from hoofed animals lol. Your imagination is quite wild my friend. The is no proof of this.
Your sources are lying to you. Whale evolution is well understood because whale fossils are relatively common. They evolved from even toed ungulates and share a common ancestor with hippos. Both fossils and DNA analysis shows this clearly.
Wait, vestigial hip bones is your proof?? Sorry, wrong again. That bone which is found in whales and dolphins is actually very useful for mating purposes.
Correct, and what a brilliant example of how evolution works. What was once a functioning normal mammalian pelvis has survived in truncated form after the rest of the hind limb skeleton withered away and has become repurposed as support for the penis, which in whales is very large and very mobile. At least that is the conjecture. Many large whale species have never been observed mating, do according to your criteria there is no reason to believe that they do so at all.
Maybe some scientists should put some more work in and actually try to figure out the use of something unknown before declaring it proof of their unsupported, presuppositional origin fable.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists have indeed put the work in. There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs. New discoveries are found virtually every week, using new techniques and newly discovered specimens. Nothing found to date has put the slightest dent in the fact that evolution occurs. Timings and mechanisms continue to be assessed but there is no doubting that life arose on this planet just once, and that every living organism has a common, very distant, ancestor. There are plenty of unsupported origin fables to be found in human culture. There is one in the Bible.
 
Biology and evolution is clear on what would break evolution; the most famous is Haldane's rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian rock layer.
There was an insect found in the salt range formation in the supposed cambrian era but this is pretty much ignored because it doesn’t follow the storyline evolutionists like. So Haldane’s rabbit turns out to be an insect. An insect broke evolution.
Given that, is there any pattern or combination of characteristics of organisms and fossils that you would put beyond the capabilities of your intelligent designer? That is, what conceivable evidence might we find - fossils, or DNA, or geographic distribution, etc. - that would cause you to say, "OK, now, *that* could not have been the work of an intelligent designer!" whether or not there is any practical possibility of ever seeing that evidence. Can you conceive of what that evidence would look like? And, what is the rationale for putting that beyond the capabilities of an intelligent designer?
My thinking has always been, what should we expect to find if the world was created vs evolved.

To figure out what to expect from an ID I look to known cases of intelligent design which we are immersed in every day of our lives. Things like phones, computers, cameras, cars, medical machines, even city infrastructures and so much more. To create these things people have to be intelligent and think about what they want to make and why then design, build, test, adjust, retest and so on. If the product is good then other people design and build factories to mass produce that item. As we continue to grow in technology we can make things a lot better than before because we learn how to be more efficient, especially with computer code but also building materials. Computers used be to huge and now they’re extremely small yet way more powerful and efficient than before. So when looking at the world I see so much evidence for ID. Cells are like factories with specific purposes and extremely more complex than anyone believed over 100 years ago and it’s more than likely that 100 years from now we’ll find it even more complex. The human body alone has trillions of factories all working in unison, better than any human ID factory ever made. A single gram of DNA can store 215 petabytes of data, probably way more, yet humans are nowhere even near capable of producing that. There’s countless more examples. If I could recognize that a simple usb drive was made by an intelligent designer then I can recognize that DNA was also made by an intelligent designer. If I can recognize that a small brick factory was made by an intelligent designer then I can recognize that over 30 trillion factories in a human body was made by an intelligent designer as well, an immensely superior intelligent designer.

For a world not made by an ID I would expect a complete contrast of the above. Without ID there wouldn’t be any complexity, order or purpose.
 
There was an insect found in the salt range formation in the supposed cambrian era but this is pretty much ignored because it doesn’t follow the storyline evolutionists like. So Haldane’s rabbit turns out to be an insect. An insect broke evolution.
You need to establish that that particular species of insect in the Precambrian would break evolution. It's not like any old organism in precambrian rock is going to break evolution. Also, without a reference, link, or citation, your statement doesn't mean much, because any scientific claim has to be open to examination and challenge.

My thinking has always been, what should we expect to find if the world was created vs evolved.

To figure out what to expect from an ID I look to known cases of intelligent design which we are immersed in every day of our lives. Things like phones, computers, cameras, cars, medical machines, even city infrastructures and so much more. To create these things people have to be intelligent and think about what they want to make and why then design, build, test, adjust, retest and so on. If the product is good then other people design and build factories to mass produce that item. As we continue to grow in technology we can make things a lot better than before because we learn how to be more efficient, especially with computer code but also building materials. Computers used be to huge and now they’re extremely small yet way more powerful and efficient than before. So when looking at the world I see so much evidence for ID. Cells are like factories with specific purposes and extremely more complex than anyone believed over 100 years ago and it’s more than likely that 100 years from now we’ll find it even more complex. The human body alone has trillions of factories all working in unison, better than any human ID factory ever made. A single gram of DNA can store 215 petabytes of data, probably way more, yet humans are nowhere even near capable of producing that. There’s countless more examples. If I could recognize that a simple usb drive was made by an intelligent designer then I can recognize that DNA was also made by an intelligent designer. If I can recognize that a small brick factory was made by an intelligent designer then I can recognize that over 30 trillion factories in a human body was made by an intelligent designer as well, an immensely superior intelligent designer.

For a world not made by an ID I would expect a complete contrast of the above. Without ID there wouldn’t be any complexity, order or purpose.
This doesn't answer my question. Can you fill in this blank: If we observed _________________________, that would be good evidence that there was no designer.

I have to reiterate this point because it's really crucial, scientifically. Any scientific claim has to live up to and survive challenges to it. I'm trying to get from you what evidence would constitute an effective challenge to ID.

Science is ultimately about trying to **disprove** hypotheses, not prove them (although trying to prove a hypothesis plays its role in practical terms). If you can disprove it, then you're done. If you can't, then maybe you're onto something.

Lastly, without being able to state what would disprove a claim, it becomes unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.
 
Sorry, you are mistaken.
Sorry but you are the one mistaken.
Nope. Your side needs magic. Evolution just needs time. There is plenty of time.
False. My side has an intelligent designer. The fact that your intelligence is but a speck compared to his doesn’t make it magic.

Your side needs magic but you disguise it as time.
Crocodiles are successful because they are very well adapted to the niche they occupy in the environment. Evolution works to make animals more fit for their environment. There is very little improvement that could take place for crocodiles, so evolution is very slow for them.
Plenty of different animals have remained very much the same over the supposed hundreds of millions of years which proves animals don’t become other animals. Reptiles don’t become mammals, that’s your silly magical beliefs, oh sorry “long period of time” belief.
Your sources are lying to you again.
Similarities between different creatures is 100% consistent with a common creator.
Sure. They are well adapted to their current environment, which favours smaller individuals.
The point is that an otter is still an otter with no evidence that it evolved into something else which proves your fabled evolution story false.
Your sources are lying to you. Whale evolution is well understood because whale fossils are relatively common. They evolved from even toed ungulates and share a common ancestor with hippos. Both fossils and DNA analysis shows this clearly.
False again. All you have is fossils of different animals that look similar and you think that proves progressive change when it only proves that there were many similar animals that died at some point while others didn’t. Again, similar animals/DNA overwhelmingly supports a common creator.
Correct, and what a brilliant example of how evolution works. What was once a functioning normal mammalian pelvis has survived in truncated form after the rest of the hind limb skeleton withered away and has become repurposed as support for the penis, which in whales is very large and very mobile. At least that is the conjecture. Many large whale species have never been observed mating, do according to your criteria there is no reason to believe that they do so at all.
Where are the hundreds, thousands or millions of transitional fossils from hoofed animals to whales that show the hip bone get progressively smaller? not to mention the thousands of progressive changes in all the other bones!

By what percentage did that hip bone decrease every generation?
What were the specific environmental pressures in each generation that caused these changes?

How can you know these environmental changes were linear?

Did some hoofed animal migrate to a new environment mid way in the transition and then detransition?

Your magical hoofed to whale idea is quite silly.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists have indeed put the work in. There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs. New discoveries are found virtually every week, using new techniques and newly discovered specimens. Nothing found to date has put the slightest dent in the fact that evolution occurs.
Because everything they find is forced into their presuppositions.
Timings and mechanisms continue to be assessed but there is no doubting that life arose on this planet just once,
Yep, life arose at the command of God’s word.
and that every living organism has a common, very distant, ancestor.
They all have a common creator.
There are plenty of unsupported origin fables to be found in human culture. There is one in the Bible.
Evolution is the biggest unsupported fable of all.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but you are the one mistaken.

False. My side has an intelligent designer. The fact that your intelligence is but a speck compared to his doesn’t make it magic.

Your side needs magic but you disguise it as time.

Plenty of different animals have remained very much the same over the supposed hundreds of millions of years which proves animals don’t become other animals. Reptiles don’t become mammals, that’s your silly magical beliefs, oh sorry “long period of time” belief.

Similarities between different creatures is 100% consistent with a common creator.

The point is that an otter is still an otter with no evidence that it evolved into something else which proves your fabled evolution story false.

False again. All you have is fossils of different animals that look similar and you think that proves progressive change when it only proves that there were many similar animals that died at some point while others didn’t. Again, similar animals/DNA overwhelmingly supports a common creator.

Where are the hundreds, thousands or millions of transitional fossils from hoofed animals to whales that show the hip bone get progressively smaller? not to mention the thousands of progressive changes in all the other bones!

By what percentage did that hip bone decrease every generation?
What were the specific environmental pressures in each generation that caused these changes?

How can you know these environmental changes were linear?

Did some hoofed animal migrate to a new environment mid way in the transition and then detransition?

Your magical hoofed to whale idea is quite silly.

Because everything they find is forced into their presuppositions.

Yep, life arose at the command of God’s word.

They all have a common creator.

Evolution is the biggest unsupported fable of all.

Sorry but you are the one mistaken.

False. My side has an intelligent designer. The fact that your intelligence is but a speck compared to his doesn’t make it magic.

Your side needs magic but you disguise it as time.

Plenty of different animals have remained very much the same over the supposed hundreds of millions of years which proves animals don’t become other animals. Reptiles don’t become mammals, that’s your silly magical beliefs, oh sorry “long period of time” belief.
Some animals have indeed remained pretty much the same for many millions of years. Others have made huge evolutionary changes. Most animals have gone extinct. The ones that stayed the same were successful. The ones that evolved quickly were able to out compete the majority which went extinct.
Similarities between different creatures is 100% consistent with a common creator.
Everything and anything is consistent with ID. It is a hypothesis with no power whatsoever. Whatever the finding, "Oh, the creator did it that way." I'd predicts nothing, explains nothing, is good for nothing.
The point is that an otter is still an otter with no evidence that it evolved into something else which proves your fabled evolution story false.
Otters are extant. Of course they haven't evolved into something else. There is evidence to show that they evolved from something else. As is the case with all extant species including humans.
False again. All you have is fossils of different animals that look similar and you think that proves progressive change when it only proves that there were many similar animals that died at some point while others didn’t. Again, similar animals/DNA overwhelmingly supports a common creator.
It isn't just looking similar. There are all kinds of observations that can be made to show relationships between fossils, which very often do not show direct lineage.
Where are the hundreds, thousands or millions of transitional fossils from hoofed animals to whales that show the hip bone get progressively smaller? not to mention the thousands of progressive changes in all the other bones!
In museums, scientific collections and laboratories.

By what percentage did that hip bone decrease every generation?
What were the specific environmental pressures in each generation that caused these changes?
An increasingly aquatic life style.
How can you know these environmental changes were linear?
I don't. No one said they where. It would be extraordinary if they were.
Did some hoofed animal migrate to a new environment mid way in the transition and then detransition?
No.
Your magical hoofed to whale idea is quite silly.
And yet it is the truth.
Because everything they find is forced into their presuppositions.
Sure. You are so much better placed to make that judgement than all these research fellows, PhD students, and Nobel prize winners with their specialist knowledge built on lifetimes of dedicated study. What do they know? A nobody on the Internet is clearly the better choicem
Yep, life arose at the command of God’s word.
Evidence?
They all have a common creator.
They all have a common ancestor.
Evolution is the biggest unsupported fable of all.
Your belief that Evolution is the biggest unsupported fable of all is the most pathetic and most poorly supported lie of all time.
 
You need to establish that that particular species of insect in the Precambrian would break evolution. It's not like any old organism in precambrian rock is going to break evolution. Also, without a reference, link, or citation, your statement doesn't mean much, because any scientific claim has to be open to examination and challenge.

This doesn't answer my question. Can you fill in this blank: If we observed _________________________, that would be good evidence that there was no designer.

I have to reiterate this point because it's really crucial, scientifically. Any scientific claim has to live up to and survive challenges to it. I'm trying to get from you what evidence would constitute an effective challenge to ID.
The only way that logic would work is if you had a second unrelated universe not connected to this one and proven to not be created by a divine entity. It would serve as the control for this one. Then we could run tests in both to see what happens, i.e., does life appear?

Your challenge does not work scientifically because God is presumably at the heart of our creation. IOW, His presence everywhere confounds any tests conducted within the current creation. Which is why you need a control. Obviously, such an experiment is impractical to conduct. I mean it would satisy your challenge but is beyond human technology and resources.

therefore it is a false impossible challenge.

People living in a swamp contract malaria. One scientist says malaria is caused by swamp gases, another scientist says malaria is caused by poor drinking water. How does one test for the cause of malaria in such a situation?

One cannot if everyone lives in the swamp because those breathing swamp gasses and those drinking the water are both exposed to mosquitoes spreading the disease. Not until you can create a control group not exposed to the swamp and what is in the swamp, ie., mosquitoes, can one determine what is the actual cause. (True story in Roman times). Moral of the story: one needs a proper control That eliminates the variable being tested for, in this case, God. Good luck finding one.

Science is ultimately about trying to **disprove** hypotheses, not prove them (although trying to prove a hypothesis plays its role in practical terms). If you can disprove it, then you're done. If you can't, then maybe you're onto something.

Lastly, without being able to state what would disprove a claim, it becomes unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.
 
Last edited:
The only way that logic would work is if you had a second unrelated universe not connected to this one and proven to not be created by a divine entity. It would serve as the control for this one. Then we could run tests in both to see what happens, i.e., does life appear?

Your challenge does not work scientifically because God is presumably at the heart of our creation. IOW, His presence everywhere confounds any tests conducted within the current creation. Which is why you need a control. Obviously, such an experiment is impractical to conduct. I mean it would satisy your challenge but is beyond human technology and resources.

therefore it is a false impossible challenge.

People living in a swamp contract malaria. One scientist says malaria is caused by swamp gases, another scientist says malaria is caused by poor drinking water. How does one test for the cause of malaria in such a situation?

One cannot if everyone lives in the swamp because those breathing swamp gasses and those drinking the water are both exposed to mosquitoes spreading the disease. Not until you can create a control group not exposed to the swamp and what is in the swamp, ie., mosquitoes, can one determine what is the actual cause. (True story in Roman times). Moral of the story: one needs a proper control That eliminates the variable being tested for, in this case, God. Good luck finding one.
I agree that we aren't going to find a control universe. But that is not the only consideration. Falsifiability is another consideration, separate from whether a control variable is possible.

Omni-presence doesn't necessarily mean that a god claim isn't falsifiable. One could have a god with characteristic X that necessarily leads to a result-in-our-universe X.1, and which also means that not-X.1 would never be seen in our universe (because this god has the characteristic X). Seeing X.1 would falsify that god, even if the god is omni-present.
 
I agree that we aren't going to find a control universe. But that is not the only consideration. Falsifiability is another consideration, separate from whether a control variable is possible.

Omni-presence doesn't necessarily mean that a god claim isn't falsifiable. One could have a god with characteristic X that necessarily leads to a result-in-our-universe X.1, and which also means that not-X.1 would never be seen in our universe (because this god has the characteristic X). Seeing X.1 would falsify that god, even if the god is omni-present.
I don’t know... I am pretty good at reviewing study designs (I did it for a living) and I am not seeing it, —a study design that is possible, for presumably an omnipresent entity, in order to test if he exists in the universe he lives in AS A TRANSCENDENT BEING.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know... I am pretty good at reviewing study designs (I did it for a living) and I am not seeing it, —a study design that is possible, for presumably an omnipresent entity, in order to test if he exists in the universe he lives in AS A TRANSCENDENT BEING.
I'm sure you are far beyond me in knowing about study designs, but, for instance, Sagan's dragon is an example of an unfalsifiable claim and you don't need a formal experimental study design to understand that.
 
I'm sure you are far beyond me in knowing about study designs, but, for instance, Sagan's dragon is an example of an unfalsifiable claim and you don't need a formal experimental study design to understand that.
Sounds like the polemic used by Russian cosmonaut, namely Yury Gagarin, who traveled to space and concluded, “I looked and looked and looked, but I didn't see God.” It appeals to those who have chosen not to believe in God.

On a more science based, critical thinking, level, I don’t know how we could test for a transcendent being among us who created the universe when we cannot even test for dark matter that we know exists just by how it influences the galaxies in our universe.

Some intelligible things are for a future generation to discover. Therefore, we cannot rule them out given current technology and resources available. I am not deflecting, I am being practical.
 
Sounds like the polemic used by Russian cosmonaut, namely Yury Gagarin, who traveled to space and concluded, “I looked and looked and looked, but I didn't see God.” It appeals to those who have chosen not to believe in God.
On a more science based, critical thinking, level, I don’t know how we could test for a transcendent being among us who created the universe when we cannot even test for dark matter that we know exists just by how it influences the galaxies in our universe.

Some intelligible things are for a future generation to discover. We cannot rule them out given current technological and resources available.
Either the claim that an intelligent designer is responsible for creating life, without this claim filling in the following blank
Can you fill in this blank: If we observed _________________________, that would be good evidence that there was no designer.
is falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

Which is it, in your opinion: falsifiable or unfalsifiable? It has to be one or the other, regardless of whether we can design an experiment to test for this designer.
 
Off the top of my head I would say,

“If we observed life in a universe where we knew God did NOT exist then that would be good enough evidence (for me) that there was no designer.”

I am with you on this. Do you know how much time and energy I could have saved in my life if God did not exist? I mean thinking about him, about what he is doing, why he said the things he said to me, why he led me where I am at, why he gave the wife and kids I have found such pleasure being around, why he told me to return to school, and so many other things. I mean so much of my life has evolved around him and I presume he has been with me through it all. Therefore, I cannot imagine a life where he wasn’t involved somehow or someway.
 
Some animals have indeed remained pretty much the same for many millions of years. Others have made huge evolutionary changes. Most animals have gone extinct. The ones that stayed the same were successful. The ones that evolved quickly were able to out compete the majority which went extinct.
The evidence simply shows that all different types of animals have lived and died. Many have changed and adapted to specific environments but they remained the same kind not deers to whales.
Everything and anything is consistent with ID. It is a hypothesis with no power whatsoever. Whatever the finding, "Oh, the creator did it that way." I'd predicts nothing, explains nothing, is good for nothing.
You’re in the same boat my friend. Anything and everything is consistent with evolution you just need to add more magic, sorry, I meant “time”. ID predicts that animals within their kind adapt and produce within their kind which is exactly what we can observe today.
Otters are extant. Of course they haven't evolved into something else. There is evidence to show that they evolved from something else. As is the case with all extant species including humans. It isn't just looking similar. There are all kinds of observations that can be made to show relationships between fossils, which very often do not show direct lineage.
All extant species have ancestors who were the same kind of animal. They evidence you speak only show similarities between different animals which is consistent with a common creator.

In museums, scientific collections and laboratories.
You’ve been lied to my friend. Give me the name of the museum, laboratory or even website that has the thousands of fossils showing step by step a hoofed animal evolving to a whale?

Where’s the whale fossil at the midpoint? Half its bones should be whale and the other half hoofed land animal.

By what percentage did that hip bone decrease every generation? If you have all the transitional fossils this should be a very simple answer.

An increasingly aquatic life style.
Crocodiles have lived in both water and land for supposedly
I don't. No one said they where. It would be extraordinary if they were.

No.
So once an animal starts transitioning it can’t revert if the environmental pressure return to how they were previously?

What exactly hinders an animal from evolving back to it’s original state of the environment start reverting back?
And yet it is the truth.
You finally admit you believe in magic.
Sure. You are so much better placed to make that judgement than all these research fellows, PhD students, and Nobel prize winners with their specialist knowledge built on lifetimes of dedicated study. What do they know? A nobody on the Internet is clearly the better choicem
There are plenty of scientists who have knowledge built on lifetimes of dedicated studies that believe in creation.
Evidence?
I’ve been asking you for evidence and you have provided nothing thus far. My evidence is very simple, it takes intelligent beings (humans) to create things like computers, factories, cameras etc. and the equivalent to these in nature are exceedingly more complex and sophisticated so it’s more than clear there is an Intelligent Designer.
They all have a common ancestor.
Something you’ve yet to prove.
 
Off the top of my head I would say,

“If we observed life in a universe where we knew God did NOT exist then that would be good enough evidence (for me) that there was no designer.”

I am with you on this. Do you know how much time and energy I could have saved in my life if God did not exist? I mean thinking about him, about what he is doing, why he said the things he said to me, why he led me where I am at, why he gave the wife and kids I have found such pleasure being around, why he told me to return to school, and so many other things. I mean so much of my life has evolved around him and I presume he has been with me through it all. Therefore, I cannot imagine a life where he wasn’t involved somehow or someway.
1. I'd really like a straight-up answer to my question, though. If the blank isn't filled in, the claim is unfalsifiable. Right?

2. Regarding your filling in the blank:

(A) If we say that the only designer possible would be God, then you'd be saying, "If we knew the designer (the designer must = God, so I just sapped out "God" in your sentence and put in "the designer") didn't exist, then that would be evidence that there was no designer." That says nothing (except A=A), it's just a tautology.

(B) If we say that some intelligent designer besides god might be possible, then your statement is not true. If we knew God did not exist, then we wouldn't know one way or the other if there was some other designer, because some other designer would still be logically possible.

Either way, your suggestion doesn't go very far at all. What is really needed is some observation about organisms and life that is necessary given some characteristic or aspect of the designer. So, if the designer is like X, we would necessarily have to not see organisms like Y or with characteristic Y. That means that if we observed Y, we'd know it can't be designer X. That would falsify the claim that designer X designed life. Without something like that, the claim is unfalsifiable.
 
1. I'd really like a straight-up answer to my question, though. If the blank isn't filled in, the claim is unfalsifiable. Right?

2. Regarding your filling in the blank:

(A) If we say that the only designer possible would be God, then you'd be saying, "If we knew the designer (the designer must = God, so I just sapped out "God" in your sentence and put in "the designer") didn't exist, then that would be evidence that there was no designer." That says nothing (except A=A), it's just a tautology.
No, I am saying that in order to prove God does not exist you would have to prove that he is not involved in a different universe in any way, because in this one, he is so intimately involved, at least, as far as I can tell.

Again, if you could show me beyond a doubt that another universe exists that God had no involvement in then I would despair thinking how much of my current life in this world was spent dancing, laughing, and crying with someone who did not exist. IOW, its incomprehensible to me that what I perceive has not been with me from the very beginning before time itself. Although, there are times when the world presses down on me, and my soul is weighed down by my circumstances, as if a black hole swirls overhead, —it is at those times I remember what he has said to me, and I hold on to his words with dear life while the ocean rages around me. Eventually, the storm passes and I find myself on a beach in paradise, iow, Where God needed me to be. Is that me justifying the means by the end? Maybe, but looking back (and forward) I wouldn’t do it any other way.

(B) If we say that some intelligent designer besides god might be possible, then your statement is not true. If we knew God did not exist, then we wouldn't know one way or the other if there was some other designer, because some other designer would still be logically possible.
That was a bit confusing, because for me there is only one God, designer, and creator. I am not sure what your point is.

Either way, your suggestion doesn't go very far at all. What is really needed is some observation about organisms and life that is necessary given some characteristic or aspect of the designer. So, if the designer is like X, we would necessarily have to not see organisms like Y or with characteristic Y. That means that if we observed Y, we'd know it can't be designer X. That would falsify the claim that designer X designed life. Without something like that, the claim is unfalsifiable.
I am trying to follow you.

1) The designer is absolute good (x).
2) We see people committed to evil (ie., “y”) therefore they were not designed by the designer (x).
3) But we also see people committed to x, therefore they were designed by the designer x.
Conclusion, an imperfect being corrupted the nature given him by the designer and formed y in opposition to the designer (1), whereas, the perfect designer secretly formed x (2) despite the imperfect being, because the designer has his Wisdom (“Jesus, Joshua, Yeshua”) and eternity on his side.

——
1) ”Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” (John 8:43)

2) ”And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top