Interesting revelation

Neo

Member
The main goal of a Christian is to help deceived people to reject their deception and accept the truth.

For instance, it is hard to help evolution promoters to understand that it is possible for an intelligent designer to have the ability to create beings that are 90%, 92%, 95%, 98%, or even 99% similar in their genetic structure.

Thus, why is it so hard for evolutionists to understand such a concept?
 

rossum

Active member
Thus, why is it so hard for evolutionists to understand such a concept?
It isn't. Indeed that is the problem. Since an intelligent designer could produce any match from 0% to 100% there is no match which would disprove that a designer did it.

The same applies to evolution. Evolution can produce any degree of matching from 0% to 100%. What science looks at is not the degree of matching, which proves nothing, but the pattern in the degrees of matching. In evolution the pattern of degrees of matching is constrained into a tree structure based on inheritance. For design there is no such constraint. A designer could put bird wings on a small horse to design a Pegasus; indeed humans have done exactly that when writing of pegasi.

What we observe is that the pattern of degrees of matching is as predicted by evolution. It is not full of random jumps, as would be needed to produce a pegasus.

In 'Origin' Darwin gives two possible ways to falsify evolution:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

- both from Chapter Six of Origin.

Where are the equivalent statements from the Design side?

If it could be demonstrated that ... then design theory would absolutely break down.

We are still waiting for ID theorists to fill in that blank. Darwin did the job in 1859. Why cannot the Design side produce an equivalent?
 

Neo

Member
It isn't. Indeed that is the problem. Since an intelligent designer could produce any match from 0% to 100% there is no match which would disprove that a designer did it.

The same applies to evolution. Evolution can produce any degree of matching from 0% to 100%. What science looks at is not the degree of matching, which proves nothing, but the pattern in the degrees of matching. In evolution the pattern of degrees of matching is constrained into a tree structure based on inheritance. For design there is no such constraint. A designer could put bird wings on a small horse to design a Pegasus; indeed humans have done exactly that when writing of pegasi.

What we observe is that the pattern of degrees of matching is as predicted by evolution. It is not full of random jumps, as would be needed to produce a pegasus.

In 'Origin' Darwin gives two possible ways to falsify evolution:



Where are the equivalent statements from the Design side?



We are still waiting for ID theorists to fill in that blank. Darwin did the job in 1859. Why cannot the Design side produce an equivalent?
Is it possible for an intelligent designer to create genomes that are 98% similar?
 

Neo

Member
It isn't. Indeed that is the problem. Since an intelligent designer could produce any match from 0% to 100% there is no match which would disprove that a designer did it.

The same applies to evolution. Evolution can produce any degree of matching from 0% to 100%. What science looks at is not the degree of matching, which proves nothing, but the pattern in the degrees of matching. In evolution the pattern of degrees of matching is constrained into a tree structure based on inheritance. For design there is no such constraint. A designer could put bird wings on a small horse to design a Pegasus; indeed humans have done exactly that when writing of pegasi.

What we observe is that the pattern of degrees of matching is as predicted by evolution. It is not full of random jumps, as would be needed to produce a pegasus.

In 'Origin' Darwin gives two possible ways to falsify evolution:



Where are the equivalent statements from the Design side?



We are still waiting for ID theorists to fill in that blank. Darwin did the job in 1859. Why cannot the Design side produce an equivalent?
Are you saying it is impossible for an intelligent designer to be able to create organisms that are 98% similar in their genetic code?

If not, then evolution is a logical fallacy and a complete and ridiculous joke.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The main goal of a Christian is to help deceived people to reject their deception and accept the truth.

For instance, it is hard to help evolution promoters to understand that it is possible for an intelligent designer to have the ability to create beings that are 90%, 92%, 95%, 98%, or even 99% similar in their genetic structure.

Thus, why is it so hard for evolutionists to understand such a concept?
Hard to understand?

In fact the Bible offered your answer in writing in Matthew.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14


Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

That included anatomy.

Science finds ALL species are functional and complete. All. No waiting for a lucky liver, wings etc.
 

Neo

Member
True. How can I refute what you say? If I try observational science, you are correct. If I try logic you are correct.

The only way you are not correct is by imagination not connected to truth and observation.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
The main goal of a Christian is to help deceived people to reject their deception and accept the truth.

For instance, it is hard to help evolution promoters to understand that it is possible for an intelligent designer to have the ability to create beings that are 90%, 92%, 95%, 98%, or even 99% similar in their genetic structure.

Thus, why is it so hard for evolutionists to understand such a concept?
lol.
The main goal of a christian is to get admitted into a place called "Heaven".

There are no evolutionists outside creationist fantasy.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
The main goal of a Christian is to help deceived people to reject their deception and accept the truth.

For instance, it is hard to help evolution promoters to understand that it is possible for an intelligent designer to have the ability to create beings that are 90%, 92%, 95%, 98%, or even 99% similar in their genetic structure.

Thus, why is it so hard for evolutionists to understand such a concept?
What rossum said in post #2 will stand quite nicely as my response, too.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
True. How can I refute what you say? If I try observational science, you are correct. If I try logic you are correct.

The only way you are not correct is by imagination not connected to truth and observation.
Enjoy this scientist who became a creationist before becoming a Christian.

 

Gus Bovona

Member
Is it possible for an intelligent designer to create genomes that are 98% similar?
Rossum answered your question in the very post that you quoted when you asked him the question. The answer is right there, he already gave it to you, and yet you have to ask him? Did you even read what he wrote?
 

Neo

Member
Rossum answered your question in the very post that you quoted when you asked him the question. The answer is right there, he already gave it to you, and yet you have to ask him? Did you even read what he wrote?
It is possible. Indeed.
 

rossum

Active member
Is it possible for an intelligent designer to create genomes that are 98% similar?
Yes. As I said, either design or evolution can produce matches from 0% to 100%. That means that the degree of matching is useless for deciding between design or evolution. We need other tests to decide.
 

rossum

Active member
No, in modern days, evolution prevents most from trusting in God.
I disagree. There is no necessary conflict between evolution and God. Just ask Francis Collins or Ken Miller. What prevents people trusting in God is the obvious disconnect between what science shows and the woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible by Ken Ham style Christians.

There are many different interpretations of the Bible. Science in general, and evolution in particular, are only in opposition to some of those interpretations. A 6,000 year old planet is scientifically ludicrous even before the evidence of evolution is taken into account.
 
No, in modern days, evolution prevents most from trusting in God.

I think the Bible prevents most from trusting god. For starters he condemned the Jews to hell, without even telling them about it, even though they were his chosen people. I could go on and on, but that would fill up the forum.
 
Then there was this guy called Paul, who went around killing early Jewish Christians - pretending the sanhedrin made him do it. Then he said he had a vision, and that meant he was right to start attacking them for a different reason, because he knew more about it than Jesus's brother. Then the church picked him to be more believable than Jesus, and then the whole thing was legislated onto Romans in 350AD, and anyone who didn't believe it had all their libraries burned.
 
Top