Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt (page 28)

QC

Here is a Socrates In The City (“The unexamined life is not worth living” forum) interview by author Eric Metaxas

In the subterranean scientific academy unknown to the public, there is descent among a network of scientist, peer reviewed papers are being written with new theories, abandoning Evolution theory with better robust hypothesis to better address the complexity found in life.

There are cracks in the Evolution dam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EmaLTaY6fA&feature=youtube_gdata (starts 11 minutes in)

Also access info at this vimeo link: http://vimeo.com/81215936

QC

99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps proves Evolution.

No, it doesn't prove Evolution.

Both chimps and human have the same designer, not the same common ancestry. Humans and animals are made of flesh from the same dust of the Earth by the same creator. This speaks to the efficiency of the Creator, differentiating humans simply by using his genetic toolkit to set man's gene expression to reflect "God's image" with divine attributes.

"Increasing scientific evidence reveals that genetic similarity has no bearing on the biological and behavioral disparity between humans and chimpanzees. Instead, what matters is the way genes are used (gene expression)."

cofty

If you understood the first thing about genetics you would know why it does prove common descent beyond all reasonable doubt.

Its not as if it hasn't been explained often enough...

QC

If you understood the first thing about genetics... [Evolution] does prove common descent beyond all reasonable doubt.

Not quite, sorry cofty.

Tells us about the MECHANISM that Evolution uses to deliver randomly and by chance ("natural selection") the guidance of precise genetics to differentiate animals from humans with reasoning, love, justice, introspection, etc.?

Your common ancestry thread doesn’t explain it.

That's very plausible with an intelligent Creator using the power of his genetic toolkit. Easily explained.

bohm

hot damn, its like qc has learned a new word (genetic toolkit) and now he is exited to share it. let me guess, you read it on a creotard blog and then it seems legitimate to use even though the concept does not support your position at all?

qc, i know reading books might scare you, but you really want to ask you, have you even read myers drivel yet?

bohm

Qc, This speaks to the efficiency of the Creator, differentiating humans simply by using his genetic toolkit to set man's gene expression to reflect "God's image" with divine attributes.

okay. So let me get this straight. Since it turn out humans and chimps are almost identical genetically and only differ in how nearly similar genetic information is used, you naturally conclude this is evidence of a creator.

because to me that sound very much in agreement with evolution. On the other hand, had it turned out there was vast genetic differences and one needed to account for the emergence of vast quantities of genetic information to explain the difference between human and chimps...

if you tried to read that book you have been plugging for months, you would see myers actually argue evolution is false due to (amongst other thing) the last argument, namely that vast amounts of new genetic information is needed to account for the emergence of cambrian phyla.

i guess every way the evidence turn out, you guys will exclaim its proof of god...

QC

hey bohm,

How does it feel to be the odd man out? Simply noise on a thread.

My apology. I see you have read the book.

Yes, vast amounts of new genetic information is needed to account for the emergence of cambrian phyla. So the focus is on the genetic information and human experience tells us INFORMATION source is alway an intelligence, not random chance.

Very good. You are reasonable. Very good point you made.

marmot

Ok, so playing Devil's advocate here we'll accept QC's proposition that God created all distinct species out of thin air. It is estimated that 99.9% of all species (plant, animal and other) that have ever existed are extinct - Newman, Mark. "A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction". Cornell University. May 20, 1994.

According to the journal Nature, there are 8.7 million eukaryotic species currently on the earth, of which 86% of land species and 91% of marine species remain undiscovered.

What's the fugging point of creating billions upon billions of species only to let them die out? Also, how the heck did Noah cram two breeding pairs of 8.7 million species aboard a creaky wooden box just 4000-odd years ago? If you trot out the "kinds" argument I'm gonna slap you upside the head, though, because that would presuppose hyper evolution on a massive scale.

bohm

Qc, im having fun exposing how silly your arguments are and eating soup thankyou.

bohm

Qc: So the focus is on the genetic information and human experience tells us INFORMATION source is alway an intelligence, not random chance.

there is a third option -evolution- and experience (laberatory wok & computer science) tell us evolution can find adaptions to an enviroment; your use of information is a red herring since i dont think you can define it.

If you feel you have some sort of proof this is not the case, please define information and provide the proof, then i will point out where the flaw is. Easier than making soup :-)

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

Share this