Unintelligent Design

[Randy Reed 0]

So similar design lends more credibility to the idea of small evolutionary changes over millions of years better than it lends itself to the notion of a common Designer?Color me perplexed.

Which color? Remeber talking about tails? Yeah I did find some more fun facts at another website I thought I'd share and besides, they are more eloquent than moi.Human embryonic tailsBetween four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. Erm, special genes to remove something we're not supposed to have?

[speedz99 145]

Between four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned.

Yeah, they're called the Hox genes...they pretty much control everything in terms of our bodies' geography, and we share pretty much all of them with every animal. The differences come in the expression/activation of the genes.Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It could be argued that this is because we all evolved from the same common ancestor(s), or that it's "intelligent design".

[Randy Reed 0]

Yeah, they're called the Hox genes...they pretty much control everything in terms of our bodies' geography, and we share pretty much all of them with every animal. The differences come in the expression/activation of the genes.Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It could be argued that this is because we all evolved from the same common ancestor(s), or that it's "intelligent design".

Yeah, I mentioned the Hox genes and how we share them with the Paddlefish earlier but BG's head asploded. Besides he doesn't believe we evolved from a common ancestor. God put us here 6000 years ago as-is. In fact over 40% of Americans believe that. But to your point. I am saying that if it was intelligently designed by a common ancestor, it was poorly done. You might be implying that a God put the building blocks on the planet and then disapeared though? Or maybe he is just sitting back watching?That would be pretty eerie. I can't imagine the thought process behind it. It would make Dirty Dutch seem like a kitten saint. Let's see, I'm going to make a planet (in 7 days since I'm lazy and want to rush I suppose), fill it with molten lava and cover the majority of the planet with water. I'll sprinkle some magic evolution dust and sit back and watch so that eventually I can watch all the humans scurrying around the planet trying to avoid volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, famine, hurricanes, tornados and things like lightning. I won't even get into the absolute horror over what he was thinkng about the torture he perpetraded upon the animal kingdom and their dog eat dog survival. I just couldn't bring myself to think that He created it in his image or that he "loves the little children" if something actually did this on purpose.

[Balloon guy 158]

fyp

You didn't change anything I said.You are still making the declarative declaration that you are capable of judging God's decisions with regards to creation.I would ask you to please present your qualifications to declare the creation is flawed.Please include examples of things you have created, and the purpose that God had with His creation so you can show why your ways would have done a better job of arriving at God's desired conclusion.Until you can demonstrate your superior methods to arrive at the conclusions sought, then you are merely a making assumptions that you do not have the ability to make. 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:18-24

[Balloon guy 158]

Which color? Remeber talking about tails? Yeah I did find some more fun facts at another website I thought I'd share and besides, they are more eloquent than moi.Human embryonic tailsBetween four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. Erm, special genes to remove something we're not supposed to have?

We have a tail?Really, you want to hang your hat on that one?

No, the human fetus never develops gills, tail or a yolk sac, as some have claimed. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals has been resoundingly proven utterly false. This is yet another great evolutionary myth that refuses to die, despite total lack of evidence and its birth in deception. It was very important in the early promotion of evolutionism.Unfortunately, many people still believe this erroneous evolutionary theory that was once widely taught in schools and still shows up in museums and books.How the myth spread | Vestigial organs theory | Tails | Yolk Sacs | Gills | Retracing human “evolutionary development” | The abortion connection | Have any humans ever been born with gills?SPREADING A POPULAR MYTHIn 1986, the Reader’s Digest Book of Facts published an erroneous “fact” that further spread a popular piece of evolutionary misinformation. They told readers that a human embryo re-traces the history of evolution: it develops slits in the neck like fish gills, it has a tail, and so on. This “fact” is so wrong that the idea was discredited and thrown out decades ago.Earlier, this erroneous “fact” was spread widely by the once-popular child development author Dr. Spock: “Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish…”[1]Where did all this erroneous idea get its start? It began with Evolutionist and German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in his 1876 book General Morphology of Organisms. With supreme audacity it was called the “Biogenetic Law.” It was a fraud from the beginning. Haeckel fraudulently presented altered, misleading and misinterpreted evidence. [2] Some of the key details of his embryo drawings were wrong - purposely altered to make a case for Evolution where none existed. Yet, how many people still know this? Of Haeckel, Richard Milton says, “No errant scientist has been more thoroughly disowned by his colleagues. …The biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously by embryologists.”[3]Early Human Development Consider the picture above your first “baby picture.” You start off as a little round ball of unformed substance. Then gradually arms, legs, eyes, and all your other parts appear. At one month, you’re not quite as charming as you’re going to be, and here’s where the evolutionist says, “There’s no evidence of creation in the human embryo. Otherwise, why would a human being have a yolk sac like a chicken does and a tail like a lizard does? Why would a human being have gill slits like a fish does? An intelligent creator should have known that human beings don’t need those things.”

rest of linkIt's a common error to fall for some of the blatant lies from the evolutionist in the on-going debate.Seeing as how there is no standard of morality to uphold, lies and false evidence is equally valuable to their goal of 'proving evolution'.But these things have all been clearly debunked thousands of times, and yet they stay in all those atheist web site.I wonder why...

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, they're called the Hox genes...they pretty much control everything in terms of our bodies' geography, and we share pretty much all of them with every animal. The differences come in the expression/activation of the genes.Of course, that doesn't prove anything. It could be argued that this is because we all evolved from the same common ancestor(s), or that it's "intelligent design".

Which is why I don't make these assumptions.But I of course am interested in truth..so there is that.

[Randy Reed 0]

We have a tail?Really, you want to hang your hat on that one?rest of linkIt's a common error to fall for some of the blatant lies from the evolutionist in the on-going debate.Seeing as how there is no standard of morality to uphold, lies and false evidence is equally valuable to their goal of 'proving evolution'.But these things have all been clearly debunked thousands of times, and yet they stay in all those atheist web site.I wonder why...

I edited my previous post, well added to it. But on to this. No, no human has ever developed gills. In the embyonic sac and verified with the Human Genome Project we do now know that indeed we have the genetic similarity of gills that don't develope since we are mammals now and not fish.

[speedz99 145]

You are still making the declarative declaration that you are capable of judging God's decisions with regards to creation.I would ask you to please present your qualifications to declare the creation is flawed.

This is that logic of yours that I was questioning. It's silly to say that we can't throw in our own opinions on whether or not certain things in nature would make sense to purposefully have been created that way.

But I of course am interested in truth.

No, you're interested in reverse engineering facts to fit what you already think is the truth. Which is what most people do.

[Balloon guy 158]

I edited my previous post, well added to it. But on to this. No, no human has ever developed gills. In the embyonic sac and verified with the Human Genome Project we do now know that indeed we have the genetic similarity of gills that don't develope since we are mammals now and not fish.

So we have gill like features?And this lends itself to the notion that we were at one time water breathing animals?And you still believe we have a tail during our development in the womb?Even though it's been proven for about 3 decades that this entire line of reasoning is completely faulty?

In the May 20, 1982 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Fred Ledley, M.D. presented a clinical case report titled "Evolution and the Human Tail." Ledley's report concerned a baby born with a two inch long fleshy growth on it's back, bearing a superficial resemblance to a tail. Ledley strongly implied that this growth (called a caudal appendage) was essentially a "human tail," though he admitted that it had virtually none of the distinctive biological characteristics of a tail!All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. Ledley conceded that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features. In fact, the caudal appendage Ledley described is merely a fatty outgrowth of skin that wasn't located in the right place on the back to be a tail! Still, Ledley saw his caudal appendage as providing compelling proof for the evolution of man from our monkey-like ancestors.

So it's in the wrong place, has the wrong make up, and we have no other example of this being a 'tail' in all of known biology..But other than that, it's a tail and it proves evolution.I am going to go out on a limb and bet that even crow will not support you on this one.I am kidding of course, crow will 100% find a way to support you

[speedz99 145]

God put us here 6000 years ago as-is. In fact over 40% of Americans believe that.

I never fail to get a kick out of this.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is that logic of yours that I was questioning. It's silly to say that we can't throw in our own opinions on whether or not certain things in nature would make sense to purposefully have been created that way.

But once you declare that you are going to use the 'flaws' that you perceive as proof that God doesn't exist, then you create the requirement to support your authority.The Bible also clearly says that God made everything, then sin entered and things begun to die. So there is no conflict to point out that things are decaying and or cancerous to what the Bible declares as Biblical Creationism.

No, you're interested in reverse engineering facts to fit what you already think is the truth. Which is what most people do.

I admit that I do this.

[Balloon guy 158]

I never fail to get a kick out of this.

You won't get a kick out of this on Judge...Ok, that joke has run it's course

[speedz99 145]

But once you declare that you are going to use the 'flaws' that you perceive as proof that God doesn't exist, then you create the requirement to support your authority.The Bible also clearly says that God made everything, then sin entered and things begun to die. So there is no conflict to point out that things are decaying and or cancerous to what the Bible declares as Biblical Creationism.

There is no proof that god doesn't exist. Just that his existence as described by the bible is extraordinarly unlikely to the point of functional impossibility.I don't know...I guess I think that looking at specific attributs of certain animals it's only logical to objectively say "the existence of [whatever] makes it seem like evolution is more likely than intelligent design". If you think that there is nothing out there to support that statement, we're not doing a good job explaining things to you. And I do believe it's possible for you to say this without changing your beliefs in any way.

I admit that I do this.

Yeah, so does everyone for the most part. I still haven't read or seen anything that to me makes it seem likely that the earth was created 6.000 years ago, Jesus was the son of god, evolution is a myth, etc...but I'd like to think that if something like that existed, I'd recognize it for what it was.

Ok, that joke has run it's course

Hey, a minor detail like that never stops guys like us, does it?

[Balloon guy 158]

There is no proof that god doesn't exist. Just that his existence as described by the bible is extraordinarly unlikely to the point of functional impossibility.I don't know...I guess I think that looking at specific attributs of certain animals it's only logical to objectively say "the existence of [whatever] makes it seem like evolution is more likely than intelligent design". If you think that there is nothing out there to support that statement, we're not doing a good job explaining things to you. And I do believe it's possible for you to say this without changing your beliefs in any way.

I have stated before but will state again for you that I do not think that it is poor logic to come to make the assumption that evolution is a possible explanation for the different species. I actually allow you guys the right to see things differently than me, I only hold out that your conclusions are as subjective as mine are.

Yeah, so does everyone for the most part. I still haven't read or seen anything that to me makes it seem likely that the earth was created 6.000 years ago, Jesus was the son of god, evolution is a myth, etc...but I'd like to think that if something like that existed, I'd recognize it for what it was.

Didn't you read my DeLorean explanation?

Hey, a minor detail like that never stops guys like us, does it?

High five

[speedz99 145]

I have stated before but will state again for you that I do not think that it is poor logic to come to make the assumption that evolution is a possible explanation for the different species.

Ah, I'm not sure I've seen you say that before. And, for the record, I concede the possibility (however small (in my opinion)) that you are correct about the whole intelligent design 6,000 years ago thing, although with the caveat that god had to have built in mechanisms to test our faith (or whatever) by making it seem very unlikely for this to be the case.

I actually allow you guys the right to see things differently than me, I only hold out that your conclusions are as subjective as mine are.

I don't see how you can think this is true, since the scientific methods used to come up with our conclusions are pretty much the opposite of subjective, but I suppose that on some level I can appreciate your point.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't see how you can think this is true, since the scientific methods used to come up with our conclusions are pretty much the opposite of subjective, but I suppose that on some level I can appreciate your point.

Except for the re-creation and observation parts.I would argue that the entire evolution theory has been forced since it's inception.When it was invented, science believed that the justification for the overall theory was based on our understanding that cells were the most complex thing in the make up of life, and therefore it wasn't all that complex of a deal.Now we know that not only was this position naive, the complexity levels have risen exponentially.So the beginning of the theory was that because it wasn't very complex, it happened by chance.Now we see that the level of complexity is incredible, and yet with this increase in complexity comes a blind faith to continue the theory presented from faulty facts and an opposite reality to the original hypothesis.I attribute this to your previous statement that these people are looking at all facts through evolution tinted glasses and are forcing them to fit into this ever changing theory.Of course, then you guys try to claim that it is because the theory of evolution has been radically changed that we can believe it, because after all, how can we believe something that is absolutely true? Only things that change in values of truth are real science.

[Randy Reed 0]

So we have gill like features?And this lends itself to the notion that we were at one time water breathing animals?And you still believe we have a tail during our development in the womb?Even though it's been proven for about 3 decades that this entire line of reasoning is completely faulty?So it's in the wrong place, has the wrong make up, and we have no other example of this being a 'tail' in all of known biology..But other than that, it's a tail and it proves evolution.I am going to go out on a limb and bet that even crow will not support you on this one.I am kidding of course, crow will 100% find a way to support you

Oh yee of little faith. I've seen some pretty good tail in my days.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ah, I'm not sure I've seen you say that before. And, for the record, I concede the possibility (however small (in my opinion)) that you are correct about the whole intelligent design 6,000 years ago thing, although with the caveat that god had to have built in mechanisms to test our faith (or whatever) by making it seem very unlikely for this to be the case.

Going back to my time travel presentation.If we arrived on earth on day eight of creation, and you looked at a fully grown man and concluded that the earth must be 20 years old because all science and everyone's experience up until then was that it took 20 years for a human to develop to this stage...you would be 100% correct scientifically, and 100% wrong in reality.And this condition would not require for God to be testing you, it is also possible that God was not using Adam's age at creation to do anything but have a fully formed man.Your decision to argue that God was testing you is completely on you, not Him.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Going back to my time travel presentation.If we arrived on earth on day eight of creation, and you looked at a fully grown man and concluded that the earth must be 20 years old because all science and everyone's experience up until then was that it took 20 years for a human to develop to this stage...you would be 100% correct scientifically, and 100% wrong in reality.And this condition would not require for God to be testing you, it is also possible that God was not using Adam's age at creation to do anything but have a fully formed man.Your decision to argue that God was testing you is completely on you, not Him.

right. but if there was a body of a dead animal there beside the newly formed '20yr old' man, why?

[vbnautilus 48]

When it was invented, science believed that the justification for the overall theory was based on our understanding that cells were the most complex thing in the make up of life, and therefore it wasn't all that complex of a deal.

Now we know that not only was this position naive, the complexity levels have risen exponentially.So the beginning of the theory was that because it wasn't very complex, it happened by chance.Now we see that the level of complexity is incredible, and yet with this increase in complexity comes a blind faith to continue the theory presented from faulty facts and an opposite reality to the original hypothesis.

:what_the_hell_are_you_talking_about_face:

[speedz99 145]

I would argue that the entire evolution theory has been forced since it's inception.When it was invented, science believed that the justification for the overall theory was based on our understanding that cells were the most complex thing in the make up of life, and therefore it wasn't all that complex of a deal.Now we know that not only was this position naive, the complexity levels have risen exponentially.So the beginning of the theory was that because it wasn't very complex, it happened by chance.Now we see that the level of complexity is incredible, and yet with this increase in complexity comes a blind faith to continue the theory presented from faulty facts and an opposite reality to the original hypothesis.

I find fault with your claim that the level of complexity we now realize exists is in any way a disproof of evolutionary theory. Of course, the problem is that in order to really understand why, you'd have to seriously educate yourself (like, beyond wikipedia) on the molecular-level mechanisms of evolution that you're referring to...frankly, I doubt you have the time or inclination to do so (and I don't really blame you). You don't want to "blindly" take the word of scientists or people who do understand the science behind it, which is fine, but please understand that with some time and effort you might realize that it's not as blind of a leap as you currently think. Would it change your mind? Probably not. But it's unfair of you to make claims about what scientists know without really knowing what they know. You know?

Going back to my time travel presentation.If we arrived on earth on day eight of creation, and you looked at a fully grown man and concluded that the earth must be 20 years old because all science and everyone's experience up until then was that it took 20 years for a human to develop to this stage...you would be 100% correct scientifically, and 100% wrong in reality.

I don't know what time travel presentation you're referencing (or just don't remember it), but I see your point, and it makes some sense.. I mean, it's a gigantic stretch, but I see your point. Where do dinosaur bones come into the picture? Do you think that dinosaurs were roaming the earth 5,999 years ago or that the bones are part of your "recently created from nothing 20 year old" theory? I've got to say, neither would make much sense to me...maybe you can explain it.Edit: Some unnamed poster has beaten me to the dinosaur question, and has done so in a much less obnoxiously wordy way.

[Randy Reed 0]

Except for the re-creation and observation parts.I would argue that the entire evolution theory has been forced since it's inception.When it was invented, science believed that the justification for the overall theory was based on our understanding that cells were the most complex thing in the make up of life, and therefore it wasn't all that complex of a deal.Now we know that not only was this position naive, the complexity levels have risen exponentially.So the beginning of the theory was that because it wasn't very complex, it happened by chance.Now we see that the level of complexity is incredible, and yet with this increase in complexity comes a blind faith to continue the theory presented from faulty facts and an opposite reality to the original hypothesis.I attribute this to your previous statement that these people are looking at all facts through evolution tinted glasses and are forcing them to fit into this ever changing theory.Of course, then you guys try to claim that it is because the theory of evolution has been radically changed that we can believe it, because after all, how can we believe something that is absolutely true? Only things that change in values of truth are real science.

Actually the beginning of the theory by Darwin was strictly on observation and then it has been continually backed up for the last 100 years by everthing we learned. Nothing has ever dissuaded us from believing he was absolutely correct. He had none of the knowledge, computers and advancements in science at the time yet al lthe fossils he perdicted we would find were actually there and we're still finding more. I'm sure even he would be amazed at the level of verification we have accomplished. He would probably feint seeing the Human Genome Project. You say it is more complex, but in reality it has become alot simpler for the most part as far as our understanding goes.

[Balloon guy 158]

right. but if there was a body of a dead animal there beside the newly formed '20yr old' man, why?

Again, I can present my opinion, but I would be presenting slanted positions with an intent to offer an explanation that fits what I already believe to be true.Since the Bible is silent on the fossil things, then I will assume that I didn't make the 'need to know' list.But your question assumes that all these fossils are older than the 6,000 year age of the earth.You are basing this on the notion that the science we use to determine the age is an absolute authority.AND that the finding of these fossils has only one intention, to 'test you'.1. What if the science we use to test age is faulty because of conditions that we cannot know about. e g What exactly is the reaction to carbon decay rates when an entire planet is created with a thought? How much red shift would a ray of light have if it was created 1 million light years long?2. If God had left a receipt for parts from Plant Creation Warehouse and we found it under a rock, would you be free to doubt the existence of God? Maybe God is only giving you the freedom to come to your own conclusions about His existence, so instead of testing you, He is actually allowing you the greatest freedom in the universe, the freedom to reject your Creator.3. What if like the original proponents of evolution, you are completely wrong about 90% of what you use as the basis for your truth? I mean if someone came to you and presented a hypothesis with most it's facts wrong, you would hardly give their other facts much weight on the subject would you? In the 1900s they were just as convinced evolution was true...and their entire collection of proof was a scientific abomination

[speedz99 145]

1. What if the science we use to test age is faulty because of conditions that we cannot know about. e g What exactly is the reaction to carbon decay rates when an entire planet is created with a thought? How much red shift would a ray of light have if it was created 1 million light years long?

Er...what?

2. If God had left a receipt for parts from Plant Creation Warehouse and we found it under a rock, would you be free to doubt the existence of God? Maybe God is only giving you the freedom to come to your own conclusions about His existence, so instead of testing you, He is actually allowing you the greatest freedom in the universe, the freedom to reject your Creator.

Um...huh?

3. What if like the original proponents of evolution, you are completely wrong about 90% of what you use as the basis for your truth? I mean if someone came to you and presented a hypothesis with most it's facts wrong, you would hardly give their other facts much weight on the subject would you?

Ah...que?Maybe think about this one for a while and try again?

[Balloon guy 158]

Er...what?Um...huh? Ah...que?Maybe think about this one for a while and try again?

I have this reaction often in this section.And I deal with it.So suck it up college boy.