Creation Evolution debate between friends

[“DTW, please read this entire entry before jumping to conclusions mid way through the post and responding to each point as if they existed in isolation. It’s important.”]

Defend the Word: Can I first thank you for your hard work, you have obviously put some significant effort into compiling this information. For those who want to go through all the points in your post they will just have to refer to the post above. I will attempt the best I can to give you my reasons why some of the things you said may be leading you to the wrong conclusion.

“when I attempt to point out and say “you have time, plus chance and random matter equals evolution you say no, no”.”

[“Then let me explain with an example closer to home. You have a daughter. She was created from nothing. Well, not quite nothing; there was a biological process involved. A single sperm fertilized an egg. That fertilizing sperm was one of many millions ejaculated into a time and place that was just right, that contained all the necessary pre-conditions for fertilization to take place and then occurred to allow fertilization to take place. The ‘chances’ of that single sperm to be the fertilizing agent was perhaps one in 50 million. Highly unlikely. Almost impossible. Yet it happened. Is this a miracle? Well, from a probability standpoint, each and every fertilization and implantation and development step leading to a successful childbirth seems so unlikely that it is often confused with being evidence for the miraculous. As parents, we often feel this sense that human life itself is both fragile and miraculous, which is perfectly understandable… especially when we understand mathematically how unlikely the entire fertilization to birth process is to yield a healthy newborn. But is it a supernatural event? Does human progeny give us evidence for a supernatural design agent? I don’t think so because we have a perfectly reasonable biological understanding of all the processes involved and our understanding requires no supernatural agent. Although fertilization seems so unlikely, it does not mean fertilization is a random process. It occurs every minute of every day all over the globe, so much so that this highly unlikely event is actually common place because of the numbers of occurrences involved.”]

Defend the Word: I have several friends who are Doctors of Medicine and one of them is a research fellow (The title of research fellow is used to denote a research position at a university or similar institution, usually for academic staff or faculty members. A research fellow may act as independent investigator, or under the supervision of a principal investigator. In contrast to a research assistant or research officer, the position of research fellow, normally requires a doctoral degree or equivalent work.) What I find interesting is that they all Believe in Creation story, so these are not only Doctors with PhD’s but they are also involved with some Post Doctoral studies. Their reluctance to get involved with the research on the subject of Evolution is usually explained by the fact that they would be ridiculed and they are not prepared to risk their careers. But on the question of Creation they all state that their scientific background is not stopping them from believing in creation story. This is one of the main reasons why we have limited work on the “process of creationism” if I can call it that. So saying that one is more scientific then the other can be explained with the fact that one is far more controlling and dominant I am sure that someone who so lovely puts his side of the argument (I mean you) you would be aware of the definition of Paradigm shift that always existed on almost all subjects in the history of Science. I therefore consider it to be inappropriate to dismiss one side simply because majority of people say something different. Though we could go through this topic separately I consider it important that we understand how our minds work.

And now more directly on your topic of human reproduction and chances, let me redefine the statistics here, I know that this is what Prof Dawkins often uses to explain “unlikely” and translate it into every day event. However few things are missing here.

1.)    We know that when man and woman get together this will result in birth of children. This is statistically very probably.

2.)    Statistics are also somewhat muddied here by the fact that there are especially when you remember that in fully developed male we are talking about between 40 to 600 million seeds going out at any one time. This is why doctors often talk about this in the form of race. We also know that according to the period that woman will have or the closer to the ovulation period with frequency of intimacy is increased this will then likely determine the sex of the baby. Suddenly stats are saying more about wonderful process that gives us more less even spread of both sexes rather than anything else. Can this be used to say that maybe this is how God planned things to happen so that every woman had her man, I don’t know but certainly makes good sense to me.

[“From a single simple egg fertilized by a simple single sperm comes a being today of some 150 trillion cells working in tandem to create something that looks designed, namely, your daughter. You see a single entity but biologically each of us is a swarm of related and mutually supportive cells, almost all of which live and die repeatedly throughout our lives. These cells are quite different – a liver cell is not a brain cell – yet all come from one cell! How is this possible? Well, stem cells are special little critters, eh?”]

Defend the Word: Again can I thank you as you have obviously done loads of work to put this together. But note that argument is not about genetics that is passed from one generation to the next. I understand where you are taking us with this but I think that is basing your view on number of assumptions. Fact that we start from so little is not proof of evolution one could argue on the contrary as there is already information passed in the cells of sperm and the egg we have blueprint that is being used by RNA when copying donated DNA from the parents.

[“The code for how cells live and die and interact rely on genes. The genes in your daughter are a direct descendant of a shuffling of your genes and your wife’s. Notice how I intentionally use the word ‘descendent’ rather than ‘replica.’ So why isn’t your daughter made up of exact replicas of you in part and your wife in part? Why do her ears look more like yours (let’s say) than your wife’s but without the hair? Perhaps her ears look nothing like either of her parents but a spitting image of a grandparent’s? Why not a replica? The answer is a key element of evolution. Although your daughter’s genes are roughly 99.999% equivalent to a mixture of her parent’s genes at fertilization, she has some mutations. We call these mutations ‘random’ but they occur within a very ‘designed’ framework, namely, the collection of genes from you AND your wife. So although we can call the mutations random, they occur within very strict guidelines. That does not mean one of her genetic mutations is an elephant and another a kangaroo; it means there are differences in her DNA code than let’s say a brother’s code.”]

Defend the Word: I understand what you are saying, in fact in one of my previous comments I did in fact stipulate that if one of your grand parents is from different ethnic background you could have child born to two white Caucasian parents but they could have child of different ethnic background look which is identical to one of the parents, parents. In other words child would look more like grandparent. This is not new and neither is it contradictory to what ID people stand for. Most of the ID proponents argue that we share common ancestry probably coming out of Africa, this is in fact consistent with the story of Adam and Eve.

[“Random changes occur. More importantly, your daughter has developed since fertilization and this development has been influenced by her environment pre-and post birth. Her development has been similar but different from yours and similar but different from her mom’s. Believe it or not, your daughter is a living example of evolution in action. She is from you and your wife but neither you nor your wife nor some pure replica of a mixture of both. Over the next 20,000 years, her progeny and let’s say a brother’s progeny will be remarkably different from each other after such a great deal of time has passed as each of these tiny alterations are passed on generation after generation even though both daughter and son come from the identical ancestry.”]

Defend the Word: On the issue of replication we accept that human cloning is wrong, as there are number of ethical issues that both British and American governments believe to be disadvantageous to our long term survival. This is why even in the Bible you will find that close relatives should not get married, so diversity is beneficial to our productivity as species.

[“This is where so many creationists stop understanding evolutionary effects. They say, “Well I understand that small changes can be passed on through generations but that doesn’t explain why you (scientists) think humans come from monkeys! Humans come from humans.””]

Defend the Word: This is often used as a joke rather than serious rebuttal, but basic principle is that ID proponents believe that the development of Humans is not fully answered, for example even today many scientist disagree on whether Neanderthals shared common ancestry with Homo sapiens, sapiens and this is not the only divergence amongst this “well established tree of life”  bellow is the extract I picked from one of such web pages for you to check that I’m not making things up here. To say that this issue is closed is to be forgetful of the issues that are constantly staring us in the face. As per your comment Precambrian period shows very little diversity and complexity then we have forms of animals that are introduced to earth history which continue to this day with some minor modifications.

Their results show that the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5-percent identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having cohabitated the same geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Based on these early results, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis last shared a common ancestor approximately 700,000 years ago.

[“It is the understanding of common ancestry that throws off a good many people. Few of us can truly grasp what a million or a 200 million years of evolution can yield and this is where other evidence is so powerful.”]

Defend the Word: Please note that people generally understand (At least those who are continuously debating this subject intelligently) this principle of ancestry this is not difficult concept to master. Difference in opinion does not mean lack of understanding.

[“If we can determine that direct progeny usually yields a transference of nearly but not quite 100 % of genetic material shuffled from both parents, then what should we expect to find over, let’s say, 10 generations? Well, it’s reasonable to expect to find the average genetic difference between one generation and the next and multiply that by ten. Guess what? That’s what we find. But ten generations is next to nothing in evolutionary time frames for people. Your daughter is not expected to grow some physiological feature from a different species. So how many years are we talking about for 10 generations? 600 years? Do you have any idea where a scientist could find your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother and establish how much genetic drift has occurred? Probably not. I don’t. So working strictly with human physical ancestry regarding evolution is full of very real problems.”]

Defend the Word: This is all well and good but we have information, (and this is according to the theory of Evolution) going back many thousands of years that show little changed of human specimens.

[“Welcome to the world of fruit flies. Each generation is about 24 hours and they make excellent subjects. Following the genome of fruit flies over hundreds and thousands of generations reveals evolutionary trends. Different wing coverings. Different colourations. Different sizes and number of offspring. But still fruit flies. Fish have been shown to evolve in fewer than 10 generations due to predation and stream bottom types. So too do viruses evolve. Granted none give live birth to cats or alligators, but they do show genetic change when strains are split from each other and exist in different conditions. In the lab we can show evolutionary change in viruses and some critters. No supernatural creator is necessary to explain this biological process. By extension, the working hypothesis for the evolution of humans is that over a very great deal of time our species was separated from our brothers and sisters by geography and need and developed differently.”]

Defend the Word: Note again there is very little that I would pick to disagree with you except the final conclusion that this demonstrates and confirms the process of evolution. Much has been said about the analysis of fruit flies, and interestingly enough this constant tinkering with genetics is often overlooked, they would like us to think that these are natural processes yet they are preformed in highly controlled environment. Secondly changes that are introduced often disappear in the following generation, lastly things as extra wings used to explain process of evolution are often handicap that prevents flies from functioning as per normal. Therefore this unnatural process again proves to be destructive rather than positive i.e. generating animals improvement and benefit. So rather than bringing net gain it usually brings loss of information. This does not mean that Christians reject evolution completely. The evolution process is well documented but the definition and its full reach is often overestimated. I.e. there are minor changes that are governed by the change in the environment like the variation of habitat of close islands and bird populations will result in same species having slightly differing characteristics. This I would argue can be attributed to the designers insight rather than evolution process i.e. as any project manager would tell you. You need to take every eventuality into account so that your product will function properly whatever the environment. We also know that when the environment is back to normal these birds would get their old beaks to the original design. Therefore we have oscillation in size and shape, and on the subject of crossbreeding of dogs we know that these unfortunately whenever preformed continuously by humans will result with severe impediment to their development.

[“How can I make such a claim? This is where genetics is such a powerful investigative tool. You have no doubt heard that monkeys and humans are genetically different by about >3%. That >3% requires about 4 million years of genetic drift from a common species separated at about that time. That creature’s full genetic code (100%) should make up about the same 97% of our code that is shared by monkey’s. That would be our common ancestor. What might it look like? Well, it should have the same physical features common to both monkeys and humans. We are getting closer. We have found several intermediate human-like critters for both humans and monkeys that share 98% of their genetic codes, 99% of their genetic codes, so imagine the excitement if a critter was found that looked like it may be the common ancestor? Turns out, it wasn’t. It’s another intermediate, but closer still. This kind of work is what evolutionary biology looks like in action, arriving late on the scene (today) but trying to work backwards to explain all the evidence (finding that common ancestry for all critters of the world).”]

Defend the Word: Genetics can only take you so far, we do need to both analyse, and understand that data before we can give our conclusion on what we examine.

Look at the article here in National Geographic’s I will just give you first few paragraphs. Whilst I disagree with their conclusion it shows that often we make claims that are not necessarily 100% accurate.

For decades, scientists have agreed that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical. A recent study suggests that number may need to be revised. Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material.”

From: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

I am also going to include something from Discovery sight that is giving further explanation on the implication of new research on genetic difference and similarity.

1% Genetic Difference Between Humans and Chimps a “Myth”

Last July, David Tyler wrote an insightful post at ARN stating,

For over 30 years, the public have been led to believe that human and chimpanzee genetics differ by mere 1%. This ‘fact’ of science has been used on innumerable occasions to silence anyone who offered the thought that humans are special among the animal kingdom. ‘Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.’ However, this ‘given’ is about to be discarded.

Tyler was quoting a Science news article entitled “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” which reported that “human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%.” The statistic of an alleged 1% difference between human and chimp DNA is thus quickly becoming a thing of the past. A recent post at Scientific American’s blog states, “humans may have as little as 99% of their genes in common with one another, and, by the same analysis, as little as 95% of their genes in common with chimpanzees.” Thus, according to the article, “Humans turn out to be as genetically different from one another as it was previously thought they were different from chimps.” (emphasis added).

The implications of these differences remain to be sorted out by biologists, but those seeking to understand evolution and genetics should realize that the 99% similarity statistic between humans and chimps is now admitted to be a “myth.”

Taken from : http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/1_genetic_similarity_between_h.html

Also please note that whilst these percentage may appear to be small when you talk about several billions of letters then this 5 plus percent represents large number of differences that should not be discarded. If this is ignored we could argue that we are also linked to mice, as I’m sure you will be aware that some of the experiments done on mice are for our human benefit due to “genetic similarity” we have with them.

[“There are many criticisms of particular aspects of evolution. These are tests for the theoretical framework and, so far, each has been satisfactorily accounted for. There are no theory breakers, such as the oft cited rabbit found in the pre-cambrian. There are ideas like Intelligent Design that sound more plausible than evolution to many, but unless and until evidence that establishes its explanatory superiority is offered and accepted by peer reviews, the working framework remains evolution. Its power lies in its ability to explain, predict, test, and yield consistent results. ID fails on all these accounts save for explanation. That’s why it is considered junk science. It remains assertion. The flagellum example introduced by Behe has been shown to be wrong. Complex systems DO combine from other bits.”]

Defend the Word: These are very debatable comments;

1.)    I would disagree that all issues have been satisfactorily explained by the modified theory of evolution. As modification is often accompanied when challenges are presented.

2.)    On the issue of irreducible complexity and Behe, I don’t believe that this was disputed successfully for two reasons. One whilst there are less complex bacteria, we know that for flagellum it needs all the parts, secondly sequence and timing plays big part which is also ignored. In other words if not timed correctly or parts are not produced on time bacteria will be useless.

[“But before I go off on this tangent and allow myself to drawn into dealing with a thousand and one quibbles about evolutionary specifics, let’s return to your daughter.

You will notice that she is significantly different in biological complexity than when she was a zygote, an infant, a toddler. Is this not evidence for a supernatural agent ‘causing’ her increasing complexity? No, it is not. She is undergoing an increase in complexity that can be explained in strictly biological terms. We do not need a supernatural agent and allowing for one answers nothing.”]

Defend the Word: The increase in complexity in the time of the existing single animal or human is development process that is observed daily but again this is not example of evolution in action on the contrary we know that DNA is degrading and aging is not positive but negative process on all of life.

[“But imagine a large and well-funded group of people who step forward and insist that your daughter HAD to be created by supernatural means, that her development was testament to the benevolence of a supernatural creator, that in fact unless you discard the conspiracy of biologists to fool you into thinking she is a natural product of biology and environment, you cannot be moral. You must be unethical, an intolerant, strident, militant god-denier if you allow human physiology rather than belief in a creator to be the prime agent of human reproduction.”]

Defend the Word: I think this is “slight” misrepresentation of the facts, as I pointed out to you earlier there are many Christian Doctors of Medicine two issues are not contravening each other. Christianity has historical evidence to support it’s endeavour to understand and progress science not vice versa.

[“Now take a leap: if you were a professional doctor of human physiology, having studied complex human biological processes to the point of being able to use all the tools and advanced specialized knowledge to help women with physiological impediments to become pregnant through the use of modern science, and had to argue with these faith heads that what you understand has a basis in explanatory knowledge of human physiology and well established with real world cause and effect that can be successfully predicted and tested and falsified and established as fact in a consistently meaningful way everywhere and at all times, then I suspect you would not be quite so ready to call the doctors’ insistence on what offers every hallmark of what’s true, accurate and correct to be called ‘ignorant’. Just the opposite, I would hope. They’ve earned their knowledge and know what they are talking about. The faith heads have not. They have assumed their explanation without informing it with what’s testable, falsifiable, and predictive and do not know what they are talking about regarding physiology.”]

Defend the Word: Here are some of your major week points in this argument, you “take a leap” and you should not do that, rather you should make logical progression with your argument.

1.)    There are religious scientists, Christians are not ignorant people.

2.)    There are verifying attitudes to the issue of Evolution and reproduction amongst all scientist and simplistic view of them and us is always wrong.

3.)    Detailed understanding in one subject does not mean you understand all subjects, also note that when you are not told to question those who teach you one will much longer to get to the point of disagreeing with established scientific paradigm “dogma”.

4.)    Some scientist hold different often opposite views on many of the issues in their particular area of study. And I don’t only mean Evolution, this shows that often when we give credit to someone who is highly educated we don’t into account that someone else equally qualified may disagree with his/her hypothesis.

[“In addition, the faith heads have not earned the right to actively interfere with the subject practiced by these doctors. Nor would you be willing to stand by and allow the faith heads to insert creator theories of human reproduction into physiology courses, as if there existed a ‘controversy’ between the ‘believers’ of human physiology and the believers in human creationism by a supernatural agent. And when you came across well-intentioned people assuming that the subject was actually open to debate, you would feel obligated to point out the vacuous basis on which the creator belief was established compared to the knowledge base offered by understanding human physiology and reproductive biology. There is no room for both to be correct, no middle ground to tolerate the creationist belief along side understanding human physiology.”]

Defend the Word: I am suppressed that someone so bright can make so many assumptions without looking at the broad picture. I appreciate that you may have had bad experience and in the way this partially justifies your attitude but  you should not limit your understanding on singular answer but look for what others that oppose Evolution may say. There is a great variety of views on this subject even amongst Christians, some believe in Young earth others believe in Billions of years, some believe in gradual Evolution guided by God, others believe in progressive creation process that lasted long time. And this is just basic differences that I’m sure you would be aware of.

[“That is exactly what is happening with the ‘debate’ about evolution. There is not debate. Evolution has proven itself to be a comprehensive theory that explains how life evolves. It works. It works in every aspect of understanding change over time.”]

Defend the Word: As I have shown to you with some of my answers many of the “proven” arguments have been challenged fact that this is ignored does not mean that they are irrelevant arguments on the contrary. There is evidence that amongst scientists they are arguing the same issues, fact that they are included in some research papers shows that momentum is growing rather than receding. This issue is not going to go away until truly satisfactory answer is found.

[“Evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis, the beginning of life. We can assume that it must start with protein chains and that it involves a catalyst of enzymes. RNA looks very promising but until we can create life in the lab under conditions similar to the known geology of 4.2 billion years ago, then scientists don’t know. Faith heads know, because their knowledge is simply belief and that’s good enough for them, but science is a little more discriminating, a little more insistent that for us to know something requires more than stating something must be so.”]

Defend the Word:Again I think your bad past experience is leading you to this conclusion, I think we all need to learn to think “outside the Box” where we are not limited with personal experiences but are looking objectively on all aspects of the counter arguments. I take your point on first origin and beginnings, however not all atheists and proponents of Evolution would agree with you but I admire your honesty. Often people will pretend that they understand when factually we have no data to analyse, so question is how can one come to such conclusion is one that should not be avoided.

[“Nor is evolution concerned with the creation of the cosmos. Evolution explains how life evolves and the evidence is overwhelming. Even faith evolves.”]

Defend the Word: I agree that we observe Evolution, but in my opinion this is the case of adaptability which is good for us and secondly Evolution may bring changes which are not so good for us. There are no incontrovertible  proofs only observation and hypothetical explanation, and this is precisely how ID works so to say that one is better than the other I just not critically correct.

[“Hopefully, your daughter will evolve and continue to change throughout a long and meaningful life. The more she passes on her knowledge to the next generation, the better able they will be to continue to evolve. Our world needs more of this kind of informed change than the entrenched ignorance that faith provides to meet the challenges of the evolving world.”]

Defend the Word:Thank you for your kind words, as it happens I have been bugging my 8-year-old daughter to study medicine, and my Boy has plenty of dinosaur toys they have number of encyclopaedia, and I intend to buy for them microscope and books on the universe with some CD / DVD material. So as you can see I would hate for my children to be factually ignorant and would love for them to challenge everything in the nicest possible way. I do not believe in dogma, I believe that whenever we are told something / given instructions in the Bible this is given to us for a reason. And often with greater understanding of science we understand the importance of what the Bible is saying. For example Bible talks about the earth being round and hung on nothing. It also talks about beginning of Time. And today we know from Cosmology that time was created when the Big Bang happened and we know that Earth is indeed suspended in space.

Finally let me again thank you for such enormous amount of work that you have done.

Kind regards

Defend the Word

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Creation Evolution debate between friends

  1. tildeb says:

    You’re welcome.

    If you stand back from the details I have provided (very rough, I’ll admit) and look at my main point, you’ll notice that what I am comparing is creationist belief to human reproduction.

    Creationist belief in this regard doesn’t add any working knowledge to understanding human reproduction. What adds knowledge that works consistently over time and regardless of geography is human physiology, chemical interactions, cellular processes, genetics, and so on. All of these areas interact to establish knowledge of how human reproduction actually works in the natural world. All of this information informs the working theory of how human biology – and not an intervening supernatural creator – allows for the process we call human reproduction. But also in each of these areas that inform human reproduction, various experts may quibble about very specific bits and pieces. In no way does this quibbling reveal some inherent weakness in understanding human reproduction through biology alone. This quibbling is science in action, self-correcting and full of passionate debate.

    In each area of evolution – a sum total of fields that each conclusively support the mechanism that so beautifully explains biological change over time – various experts may quibble about very specific bits and pieces. There are even many biological experts who may even allow for the possibility of a supernatural intervention to initiate conception, just as many scientists allow for the possibility of a supernatural intervention to initiate life. But these quibbles and allowances in no way undermine the known biological process of human reproduction; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for evolution.

    These quibbles and allowances between evolutionary experts are used by creationists as if they revealed evolution to be false! This is simply wrong. It is factually wrong. It is scientifically wrong. As harry and I have pointed out, even if that pre-cambrian rabbit fossil is found and evolutionary theory is turned upside down, this will not enhance creationist claims one nanometer, any more than revealing a supernatural initiator for human conception will cast aside all the known physiology behind human reproduction. There is the possibility for supernatural intervention in both – and many scientists will admit that – but so far there is no evidence to raise that slim probability of some supernatural creator to a reasonable explanatory alternative. That is a gross misrepresentation of what is known.

    If you needed brain surgery, would be more comfortable going to a brain surgeon who had the confidence of 94.5% of other brain surgeons and 93% of all surgeons? Or would feel equally comfortable placing your surgical outcome in the hands of someone who enjoyed 5.5% of other brain surgeons and 7% of all surgeons? This is the choice you are making whether to trust one group of evolutionary scientists and scientists who fully support evolution without the need for some supernatural intervention at any point, and another group who almost unanimously support evolutionary theory but allow for a supernatural intervention at some point in the process. The supernatural aspect is irrelevant.

    My point is that belief in some supernatural intervention adds no knowledge to our understanding of the natural world. What adds knowledge is the investigation and inquiry into the natural processes.

    My central complaint is that we also learn nothing when we allow belief to actively interfere with our investigations and inquiries in the natural processes, which is exactly what has happened with our pursuit of understanding evolution. There is neither benefit to be had nor any need to insist on either a supernatural intervention or evolution. Because evolution, like human reproduction, is a field of many mutually supportive subjects that fully informs the theoretical framework to understanding a natural process that can be shown to have a very high probability to be true, accurate, and correct (with many quibbles, to be sure), those who insist on inserting belief into the inquiry are doing all of us and their progeny a disservice.

    This is exactly the problem with Intelligent Design: it pre-supposes that a supernatural Designer is required, so that when the appearance of design is found, it supports the original supposition. The problem here is that the appearance of design can come from natural processes. The appearance of design does NOT support a supernatural Designer. Look at your daughter: she looks very similar to every other human being on the planet. She looks ‘designed’. But her appearance is not either a supernatural designer or random chance; this is a faulty starting point. Her appearance of design can be explained by the natural biological processes of human reproduction, which is neither evidence for a supernatural designer nor merely a random collection of cells from a primordial soup. There is far more to her story of explaining how she came to be what she is on this day than the the simple assertion that a supernatural designer made her so. And what we have come to know from from human reproduction serves us well. So, too does what we are coming to know from evolution.

    We need to stop infecting science with our insistence to respect natural claims made by religious beliefs; instead, we need to support natural investigations and natural inquiries into natural processes.

  2. harry says:

    ”We know that when man and woman get together this will result in birth of children. This is statistically very probably.”

    Exactly, which is why the whole argument earlier that earth is too lucky to be in the exact correct place for life is bogus. WE have more than 600 million planets in the galaxy, so statistics would indicate one of them probably would develop life.

    ”For example Bible talks about the earth being round and hung on nothing. It also talks about beginning of Time. And today we know from Cosmology that time was created when the Big Bang happened and we know that Earth is indeed suspended in space.”

    That’s bogus defend and you know it. The Bible has several quotations in it that would indicate the world is flat as well.

    I won’t mention ‘one end of the earth to the other quotations’

    The one that strikes me the most is (i cant actually find it at moment) that says the sun hops from one side of the earth to the other when night falls to start the day again, which is a clear sign that there is no understanding of some part of the earth is in continuous day.

    You’ll have to actually say which passages of the bible refer to a round earth, but even if they do, there are many that indicate its flat.

    ‘And today we know from Cosmology that time was created when the Big Bang happened and we know that Earth is indeed suspended in space.’

    No we don’t know that, that is bogus. We don’t know if time began at the big bang. And the link between genesis saying
    ‘1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’

    and the Bible knowing about time is teneous to say the least. Any good story would start with that.

    ”For example Bible talks about the earth being round and hung on nothing”

    How can you say the bible says the earth is hung on nothing and then go onto say the Bible knew all along that the earth is

    ‘indeed suspended in space’

    to be suspended on something, something has to be there. This isn’t just pedantics at your choice of language because the whole point is that gravity certainly isn’t nothing.

    Don’t go and say yes but the Bible doesn’t go into specifics, its not a science book, it could have just as easily said ‘suspended by hidden forces’ or something like that.

    The claim that science is rooted in the Bible comes from two things:

    1: People picking the correct verses ones and saying it knew before we discovered it, and they just ignore the passages which contradict the one they are pointing to.

    2: People reading the bible in the modern day and looking at it from hindsight and making it fit their world view. Like the ridiculous claim that an animal that has a ‘tail like a ceader tree’ is a dinosaur.

  3. ”We know that when man and woman get together this will result in birth of children. This is statistically very probably.”
    [“Exactly, which is why the whole argument earlier that earth is too lucky to be in the exact correct place for life is bogus. WE have more than 600 million planets in the galaxy, so statistics would indicate one of them probably would develop life.”]

    You keep on surprising me Harry, you seam to like to ignore the facts and simply go with your wishful thinking. Your 600 million planets is derived from statistical probability based on the limited data we have, so your argument is not scientific but guess work. But you obviously don’t concern yourself with that data. Secondly my argument is that God has done his stats and has organised large number of seeds that Man would use in order to make reproduction possible. I am not anti life on other planets, you continue to ignore the fact that this does not resolve the problem it only moves it elsewhere, and you should not do that. You are bright enough to understand that.

    ”For example Bible talks about the earth being round and hung on nothing. It also talks about beginning of Time. And today we know from Cosmology that time was created when the Big Bang happened and we know that Earth is indeed suspended in space.”

    [“That’s bogus defend and you know it. The Bible has several quotations in it that would indicate the world is flat as well. I won’t mention ‘one end of the earth to the other quotations’ The one that strikes me the most is (i cant actually find it at moment) that says the sun hops from one side of the earth to the other when night falls to start the day again, which is a clear sign that there is no understanding of some part of the earth is in continuous day.”]

    Is Earth Flat? Harry you make me laugh, some time ago you said that you are not concerned with the God issue only with the Evolution issue, yet you have knowledge of Biblical texts that are used by atheists. You should consider that fact before you again make claims of neutrality in the future. Let me go to the point you are probably referring to the idea that Bible gives reference to 4 corners of the earth in Revelation this is common misinterpretation and could easily be explained satisfactorily by using simple science I have dug out old quote from one web page that easily explains this misunderstanding.

    Taken from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

    Is earth flat? No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture!

    Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun’s rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.

    [“You’ll have to actually say which passages of the bible refer to a round earth, but even if they do, there are many that indicate its flat.”]

    You really should not speak on the topic if you don’t know the subject, was that not what you suggested I should not do????

    ‘And today we know from Cosmology that time was created when the Big Bang happened and we know that Earth is indeed suspended in space.’

    [“No we don’t know that, that is bogus. We don’t know if time began at the big bang. And the link between genesis saying ‘1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’”]

    Brush up on your science, this is not new stuff Harry, if you accept Big Bang you have no option but to look at the beginning of time as part of this process. I am aware of the fact that others are proposing 11 dimensions rather than 10 precisely to avoid this problem. However this theory is not widely accepted by the scientific community. Feel free to do your own digging on that subject.

    [“and the Bible knowing about time is teneous to say the least. Any good story would start with that.”]

    This again shows your world view is clouding your judgement and that is your loss not mine. You just show that your objectivity is non existent and I’m glad that, this is finally clear. For far too long you were hiding behind the mask of science and I knew that sooner or later you will come out with the staff that is personal preference rather than scientific data.

    ”For example Bible talks about the earth being round and hung on nothing”
    [“How can you say the bible says the earth is hung on nothing and then go onto say the Bible knew all along that the earth is ‘indeed suspended in space’ to be suspended on something, something has to be there. This isn’t just pedantics at your choice of language because the whole point is that gravity certainly isn’t nothing.”]

    Sorry Harry you have lost me here, if the good book is written for the primitive men that you believe to be the case, should the good book not use the language that can be understood by the primitive men? I find your lack of honesty and your constant search for loopholes to be rather like a little child who wants to get around his parents rules.

    [“Don’t go and say yes but the Bible doesn’t go into specifics, its not a science book, it could have just as easily said ’suspended by hidden forces’ or something like that.”]

    You see, you know the answer but you do not want me to use it, why is that??? Bible is theological book despite what you would like it to be. And the fact that some of the modern science is supporting what the Bible is saying is bonus not requirement. You should know that, it deals with the most important subject your personal salvation. God wants Harry to be saved not lost for whole eternity, God wants your friendship and he wants you to know all that he has done for you. He has given you the choice and you will have to choose. So therefore it is book that deals with the most important subject in the universe (If God is real) and that means rebuilding broken relationship between Harry (Anybody else too) and God.

    [“The claim that science is rooted in the Bible comes from two things:
    1: People picking the correct verses ones and saying it knew before we discovered it, and they just ignore the passages which contradict the one they are pointing to.
    2: People reading the bible in the modern day and looking at it from hindsight and making it fit their world view. Like the ridiculous claim that an animal that has a ‘tail like a ceader tree’ is a dinosaur.”]

    I don’t mean to be rude but you are looking for something that is not there. You may wish it to be there in order to destroy that straw man argument but its just like a blind alley that leads to nowhere. What I said is as follows:
    A.) Christianity has historically been a catalyst for science and has encouraged science in its community. B.) Bible is not scientific book on the contrary it deals with the life issues but you will find that there are number of places in the body of the text that fit perfectly with what science is saying today. So I’m sorry Harry but none of your arguments are shaking my boat.

    Harry can I just say rather than look for an excuse and the way out, consider what is being said and then judge it on the evidence that is presented to you. If you continue to do what you are doing you will be just like many others who will look for alternative explanation simply because they don’t like the one that is staring them in the face.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  4. [“Creationist belief in this regard doesn’t add any working knowledge to understanding human reproduction. What adds knowledge that works consistently over time and regardless of geography is human physiology, chemical interactions, cellular processes, genetics, and so on. All of these areas interact to establish knowledge of how human reproduction actually works in the natural world. All of this information informs the working theory of how human biology – and not an intervening supernatural creator – allows for the process we call human reproduction. But also in each of these areas that inform human reproduction, various experts may quibble about very specific bits and pieces. In no way does this quibbling reveal some inherent weakness in understanding human reproduction through biology alone. This quibbling is science in action, self-correcting and full of passionate debate.”]

    And as I said before, neither I nor many other Christians are anti science on the contrary I spend hours looking and studying material of interest simply because I love the subject.

    [“In each area of evolution – a sum total of fields that each conclusively support the mechanism that so beautifully explains biological change over time – various experts may quibble about very specific bits and pieces. There are even many biological experts who may even allow for the possibility of a supernatural intervention to initiate conception, just as many scientists allow for the possibility of a supernatural intervention to initiate life. But these quibbles and allowances in no way undermine the known biological process of human reproduction; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for evolution.”]

    And that is where the problem starts to materialise! When people use evolution to prove their point, they make jump from science to faith in many unknown possibilities and many outcomes but selectively choosing one particular option that supports their preferred world view.

    [“These quibbles and allowances between evolutionary experts are used by creationists as if they revealed evolution to be false! This is simply wrong. It is factually wrong. It is scientifically wrong. As harry and I have pointed out, even if that pre-cambrian rabbit fossil is found and evolutionary theory is turned upside down, this will not enhance creationist claims one nanometer, any more than revealing a supernatural initiator for human conception will cast aside all the known physiology behind human reproduction. There is the possibility for supernatural intervention in both – and many scientists will admit that – but so far there is no evidence to raise that slim probability of some supernatural creator to a reasonable explanatory alternative. That is a gross misrepresentation of what is known.”]

    I think on this particular subject you are confusing the data with the interpretation of it and we should not do that.

    [“If you needed brain surgery, would be more comfortable going to a brain surgeon who had the confidence of 94.5% of other brain surgeons and 93% of all surgeons? Or would feel equally comfortable placing your surgical outcome in the hands of someone who enjoyed 5.5% of other brain surgeons and 7% of all surgeons? This is the choice you are making whether to trust one group of evolutionary scientists and scientists who fully support evolution without the need for some supernatural intervention at any point, and another group who almost unanimously support evolutionary theory but allow for a supernatural intervention at some point in the process. The supernatural aspect is irrelevant.”]

    Your analogy is incorrect; you try to paint a picture that is just not factually correct. Whilst Bible is not a handbook on science the way we use science will determine how we view the Bible. I have mentioned many times before that many atheists would like people to believe that science has all the answers or at least all needed answers to disprove existence of God. However when you look at the data presented and believe me I have looked with a find toothcomb there is no such “evidence” in existence. Or at least all that I had to consider, and from number of articles that I have read they are all saying the same thing.

    [“My point is that belief in some supernatural intervention adds no knowledge to our understanding of the natural world. What adds knowledge is the investigation and inquiry into the natural processes. “]

    And my point is that from the very beginning here in Europe Christianity was at the very centre of scientific enquiry, what excites me is the fact that today we have many new books written by scientist who happen to be Christians and who are giving their views on the data which is often misrepresented by the pretension of some atheists who also happen to be Scientists. This is why I keep on brining this issue of world view to our attention as I consider it crucial element in scientific enquiry.

    [“My central complaint is that we also learn nothing when we allow belief to actively interfere with our investigations and inquiries in the natural processes, which is exactly what has happened with our pursuit of understanding evolution. There is neither benefit to be had nor any need to insist on either a supernatural intervention or evolution. Because evolution, like human reproduction, is a field of many mutually supportive subjects that fully informs the theoretical framework to understanding a natural process that can be shown to have a very high probability to be true, accurate, and correct (with many quibbles, to be sure), those who insist on inserting belief into the inquiry are doing all of us and their progeny a disservice.”]

    On the contrary, sorry to disagree with you here, any questioning is welcomed as long as it is logical to the subject in question. You should not simply dismiss problems especially when they are numerous, this does not mean that we should reject evolution only that we should be more cautious about the claims that we make.

    [“This is exactly the problem with Intelligent Design: it pre-supposes that a supernatural Designer is required, so that when the appearance of design is found, it supports the original supposition.”]

    You should not forget that we all start with supposition that is how science works, we start from there and move on to proving or disproving our estimates on number of possible directions that this enquiry may take us to.

    [“The problem here is that the appearance of design can come from natural processes. The appearance of design does NOT support a supernatural Designer. Look at your daughter: she looks very similar to every other human being on the planet. She looks ‘designed’. But her appearance is not either a supernatural designer or random chance; this is a faulty starting point.”]

    What you should remember is that I can also see much of myself and my wife in her and that supports my argument that we know where she originates from. Fact that are similarity between us shows that two are connected. Your argument that evolution can explain this is only an option but does not have to be correct. I admit as you say it is complex and interesting and no doubt to many it represent beautiful explanation but regardless of the beauty formula could still be incorrect. And there the danger lies, hidden from us unless we continue to critically examine all that is telling us about the world. Your comment that evolution could support both world views (At least that is how I understand your argument mentioned above) is correct but not everyone sees it your way. Many will use the argument of evolution to say that it eliminates the need for God and that is wrong and irritating conclusion that is forcing my hand into challenging this presupposition, and this is why I will continue to challenge this subject.

    [“Her appearance of design can be explained by the natural biological processes of human reproduction, which is neither evidence for a supernatural designer nor merely a random collection of cells from a primordial soup. There is far more to her story of explaining how she came to be what she is on this day than the simple assertion that a supernatural designer made her so. And what we have come to know from human reproduction serves us well. So, too does what we are coming to know from evolution.”]

    I find your views fascinating; you are obviously very thoughtful man. I would imagine that part of your reading material would be psychology and Philosophy and maybe this is why I enjoy our conversations so much. If you examine some of what you say you will find that it lines up very close to what I’m saying. But never the less our final conclusions are diametrically opposed. This is not the problem for me as long as you continue to come back I will continue to enjoy sharing my views with you. In fact if you were living close by I would have loved to invite you for a meal at my place. I find your views very interesting and your attitude not to different to how I view life.

    [“We need to stop infecting science with our insistence to respect natural claims made by religious beliefs; instead, we need to support natural investigations and natural inquiries into natural processes.”]

    We don’t differ here, despite what you may think. I will reiterate what I said earlier. Our processes are not that different it is our conclusions that are not the same. On the final issue that you keep on mentioning, statistically speaking if one option is not correct then opposing world view is increasing in value. But beside that, if the research continues to throw data that gives us reasons to believe that design is evident then we need to do something about it. For example I will use the knee to demonstrate this. It has at least 4 separate parts that are linked together. When any one of them is damaged it will impact severely on your ability to walk. So the argument goes you would not get one part to evolve then 200 years later cells without brain would decide that another part is needed then 500 years later decide we need yet another part and so on. If all 4 parts evolve simultaneously then we need to ask the question why this is. And there are many such examples in the nature.

    Lastly can I say thanks yet again for putting much of your work in a very logical order. This makes this conversation that much easier.

    I hope all is well with you and look forward to your reply.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  5. tildeb says:

    A couple of times now you’ve responded to harry and me that the probability of something being accurate is affected by reducing a probability of something else being accurate, namely, that some form of creationism is more likely to be true if evolution is less likely. Actually, your position reveals a misunderstanding about probability that can be quickly cleared up.

    If you flip a coin and want to determine the likelihood of getting a heads result or a tails result, you can calculate the probability. That you will get one result or the other is complete, that is to say, a probability of 1. But what is the probability of getting, say a heads result?

    Because the total number of results from any single event of flipping the coin are either a heads or a tails – the whole set of results – we present probabilities as a ratio with this whole set of results as the right hand number, exactly like the denominator of a fraction. In this example, the whole set of results is either heads or tails; in other words, there are two possibilities. Each possibility of either a heads or a tails result is compared to the total possibilities. In our example, we can flip the coin and get a heads result. We can also get a tails results. Those are the complete set of results, meaning we have a 1:2 probability of either heads or tails.

    Note the difference in meaning between possibility and probability. Although the two can often be successfully exchanged for the other, in statistical language of probability is a numerical expression between 0 and 1, 0 being impossible and 1 being certain to describe the result of an event.

    Two things; the first is a fallacy that goes under many names, called many the Gambler’s Fallacy. I think this is what is giving you some grief.

    Using the previous example, let’s say we flip the coin and get a result of a heads. The question now is, what is the probability of flipping the coin this second time and getting a tails result? The Gambler’s Fallacy is that people intuitively assume that there is some kind of fairness at work that alters the probability of making that second flip that somehow favours getting a tails result. We intuitively know that the chances must even out at some time, and we bet money on this sense. But the fact of the matter is that each and every flip is independent of what has gone before or after, even though casinos makes a lot of money off of people who feel that some sense of fairness must also be in play, one that will ‘even’ the odds to bring some semblance of order and balance back into the universe. The thinking is that if you flip a coin ten times in a row, the probability is greater that we will get five heads and five tails rather than ten heads or ten tails. The reason why this kind of thinking is ‘wrong’ is that each flip is the event upon which the probability is calculated. It is upon this original probability that we extrapolate that the ‘odds’ favour five heads and five tails in ten. The error is in the extrapolation. Although when calculating ten events with a two-sided coin, we can reasonably expect the 1:2 ratio to hold true no matter how many times we flip the coin. The greater the number of events, the greater the likelihood that this ratio will be stable. But likelihood is not probability, although again the language is often substituted to mean the same thing. Probability is predictive only as much in the meta analysis as it is in the individual event. But if you flip a coin exactly twice, and the first flip you get a heads, are your chances any better than 1:2 that you will flip a tails on your next flip?

    The sad answer is No.

    The chances for each and every flip is exactly 1:2, mathematically expressed as P=.5, no matter how far we extrapolate the number of events to be. Chances are not certainties; they are estimations of probabilities.

    Like the coin flip, if evolution is shown to be false (let’s call it tails), the chances of some kind of creationism to therefore be more likely (let’s call it heads) do not improve. No matter how far we extrapolate the the number of theories that are shown to be false, we do not alter the chances of some other theory to be true. Each theory must improve its chances of being true by merit, by explanatory power, by testing and showing a causal connection between the theory that supposedly explains why things are the way they are and the accumulation of evidence. If the evidence can be explained by the theory, evidence that can be tested and falsified to fit within the framework of that theory, then the theory gains veracity. When different avenues of investigation bolsters the explanation, then the theory gains veracity. When the theory can be used as a springboard to look for particular evidence, and that evidence is then found, then the theory evolves into fact. As importantly, when evidence that counters the explanatory power of the theory is NOT found, then by its absence it bolsters the fact the theory has become. This is called falsifiability. Is there evidence that falsifies the causal relationship between the theory and what evidence there is? This is the central criticism of creationism as a scientific theory; because it cannot be tested like evolution has been tested, cannot be shown to be causal as evolution has been shown to be causal, cannot be falsified as evolution has been shown to be falsifiable, so some form of creationism including ID cannot be an ‘alternate’ scientific theory. No matter how much evolution is attacked and vilified, creationism and its progeny Intelligent Design is not advanced.

    Remember I said two things? Bear with me.

    The second thing is to remember that a result from an event that has in fact occurred is no longer subject to any arguments about probabilities. Once the coin is flipped and one has the result, let’s say a heads result, then the probability of that heads result is no long 1:2. It result of the event is a probability of 1. The event has happened. The result is fact. The debate is over. The probability of that result, although perhaps interesting to reflect and marvel upon, is no longer open to questioning by way of probability. And this is where with are with evolution.

    I know, I know, I know. You disagree. You have questions and concerns about all the evidence. You have beliefs that answer the probabilities of other outcomes that may seem to be as likely, that you intuit to be as likely. This is normal. This is human. But this belief in other likelihoods does not reduce the actual outcome or offer another alternative outcome. Evolution, in this regard, is no longer open to the vagaries of probabilities. It has proven to be a theoretical framework that grants us the explanatory power to successfully deal with all the evidence.

    Evolution is not a ‘world view’. It is scientific fact as much as gravity or germs or the atoms. Evolution is like flipping a tails. Here it is. Here is the evidence, and it meets all the requirements of science to be held as fact.

    “But,” you say with a great deal of passion, “what about this and that and the other thing? All of these controversies matter!”

    Yes, they do matter, and each one is taken seriously and investigated but, so far, none has enough scientific merit or evidence to overcome the actual theoretical framework that has been shown to work so well. Holding to these other matters as if they were of equal concern, equal merit, equal scientific validity is not legitimate. That’s the wrong approach. If the evidence for these other possibilities isn’t strong enough to overcome the theoretical framework, then it must find a way to fit into the framework.

    All the questions and concerns raised by critics of evolutionary theory, including yours, DO fit within the framework. There really are excellent answers to the questions and concerns you’ve raised, albeit some very complicated answers. The issues raised by Intelligent Design have been explained within the evolutionary framework, perhaps not to your satisfaction or Behe’s or the other few scientists who refuse to accept evolutionary theory for the fact it is, but explained nevertheless. For example, there is a wonderfully detailed sequence of fossil evidence to show how land mammals transitioned to water to become whales. There is a fantastic set of fossil evidence to show the migration of a jaw bone into the hammer for the ear. There is excellent evidence to show why mutation does always not lead to genetic degradation. The genetic evidence is tailor made to fit within the framework. And so on. The biological, geological, chemical, genetic, fossilized, anthropomorphic, paleontological evidence is overwhelming in its agreement that change over time by means of natural selection explains why things are the way they are. Not one single element of evidence is outside this explanatory framework, powerful enough to offer an alternative explanation for the actual evidence.

    I know you don’t like this fact and think that an alternative explanation is reason enough. Unfortunately, it isn’t. The alternative explanation does not do what evolutionary theory so successfully does: explains the actual evidence in a simple, cohesive, and I would say beautiful natural manner. Evolution, like the tails result, simply is. P=1!

  6. harry says:

    ”Harry can I just say rather than look for an excuse and the way out, consider what is being said and then judge it on the evidence that is presented to you”

    You have presented me with no evidence!!

    ”Brush up on your science, this is not new stuff Harry, if you accept Big Bang you have no option but to look at the beginning of time as part of this process”

    Good Grief….

    Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun’s rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “LANGUAGE OF APPEARANCE,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.

    WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I SAID

    ”I won’t mention ‘one end of the earth to the other quotations’”

    I can full understand that being the language of appearances.

    ”Is Earth Flat? Harry you make me laugh, some time ago you said that you are not concerned with the God issue only with the Evolution issue, yet you have knowledge of Biblical texts that are used by atheists.”

    No I don’t. I have knowledge of biblical texts full stop. I jsut cant quote it verse for verse.

    ”You should consider that fact before you again make claims of neutrality in the future.”

    bogus again. You made an assertion that science is rooted in the bible, and they say I lose my nuetrality if I quote the bible in my rebuttal of the statement. HOW IS THAT LOSING NUETRALITY???

    ”You keep on surprising me Harry, you seam to like to ignore the facts and simply go with your wishful thinking. Your 600 million planets is derived from statistical probability based on the limited data we have, so your argument is not scientific but guess work. But you obviously don’t concern yourself with that data. Secondly my argument is that God has done his stats and has organised large number of seeds that Man would use in order to make reproduction possible. I am not anti life on other planets, you continue to ignore the fact that this does not resolve the problem it only moves it elsewhere, and you should not do that. You are bright enough to understand that. ”

    Oh whatever fine. lets call it 300 planets. and then next year, 310 etc etc. Until we do find them.

    ”For far too long you were hiding behind the mask of science and I knew that sooner or later you will come out with the staff that is personal preference rather than scientific data.”

    For Far to long you have hidden behind reams and reams of text while simaltaneously saying ‘look at the evidence” without presenting any.

    YOU ALWAYS SAY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, BUT LOOK THROUGH YOUR POST, THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC DATA THERE.

    And my personal preference is dictated by scientific data.

  7. [“You have presented me with no evidence!!”]

    I am not surprised by your comment here, but I believe this to be the case mostly to your selective hearing. There is loads of staff on this blog that could help dispel the idea that what atheists are peddling as truth is hypothesis and factually incorrect. Either videos or post linked to other blogs and even some of the comments and answers to your questions.

    ”Brush up on your science, this is not new stuff Harry, if you accept Big Bang you have no option but to look at the beginning of time as part of this process”
    [“No I don’t. I have knowledge of biblical texts full stop. I jsut cant quote it verse for verse. “]

    I spent my time doing my degree in theology and number of years trying to keep up to date with the subject, I love books and subject like Church History, Theology and Apologetics (Defending faith) form part of my regular reading material. I can say with great confidence that what I know is limited as there is so much to learn and this is why I find it astonishing that someone who does not the origins of reference could say that “he knows the Bible full stop”.

    [“bogus again. You made an assertion that science is rooted in the bible, and they say I lose my nuetrality if I quote the bible in my rebuttal of the statement. HOW IS THAT LOSING NUETRALITY???”]

    You have obviously forgotten our previous conversations, where you claimed that you are not anti religion but that you think that it is possible to be religious and Believe in Evolution. Your subsequent comments reveal something different, you show great distaste for religious writings of the Bible without understanding and freely misquoting to prove your point which as it happens does not exist. Therefore I am right in questioning your initial claim that you are not anti religion.

    ”You keep on surprising me Harry, you seam to like to ignore the facts and simply go with your wishful thinking. Your 600 million planets is derived from statistical probability based on the limited data we have, so your argument is not scientific but guess work. But you obviously don’t concern yourself with that data. Secondly my argument is that God has done his stats and has organised large number of seeds that Man would use in order to make reproduction possible. I am not anti life on other planets, you continue to ignore the fact that this does not resolve the problem it only moves it elsewhere, and you should not do that. You are bright enough to understand that. ”

    [“Oh whatever fine. lets call it 300 planets. and then next year, 310 etc etc. Until we do find them.”]

    All I’m saying is be careful what you say, it would be OK to say estimated number but it is wrong to say any old stuff in order to score points.

    [“For Far to long you have hidden behind reams and reams of text while simaltaneously saying ‘look at the evidence” without presenting any.
    YOU ALWAYS SAY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, BUT LOOK THROUGH YOUR POST, THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC DATA THERE.”]

    Please lets not start quarrelling like little children, I appreciate that your denial is classic way of saying what you said is not valid and has no merits as counter argument which is fine. But it would be nice also to note many posts, that are specific to this topic and acknowledge that they challenge very specifically fairytales pushed by those who like to pretend that their information is better and more scientific. To equally get struck into debate you need to likewise give data that could be challenged. And I could be just as ruthlessly and say I see no evidence of your arguments.

    [“And my personal preference is dictated by scientific data.”]

    Yet you fail to provide any evidence to support your view on the subject. Is this not hypocritical on your part just as much you like to accuse me of the same crime? Secondly I don’t have to provide you with anything if I can show that your evidence is lacking backbone and needs fixing. I will list here some of the issues for your info all the links are from the blog listed here. So please let this be the last time you say such thing as evidence was not presented.

    1.3 Evolution’s falsifications and complications
    go here for this information

    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_1.3_Evolution%E2%80%99s_falsifications

    4 Design of life predictions

    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4_Design_of

    4.2 Genomes of similar species

    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of

    From the same gentlemen you will find another blog also listed on my blog specifically dealing with Evolution subject.

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/

    I have also included numerous videos here, but you obviously did not pay attention. Your comments show rather superficial overview of what really happens here. I’m sorry that you try to paint incorrect picture but you should ask yourself why you are doing this. I appreciate that your pride may be hurt and that is fine, and I apologise if you are annoyed but I have to insist that your claim is just not factually correct.
    Here is another post on my blog for you to consider

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/five-questions-evolutionists-would-rather-dodge-william-a-dembski/

    And I love Dr Dembski so much that I have included two of his blogs on my blogroll. You will find them here;

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/

    and

    http://www.designinference.com/

    And if that was not enough for you, you could always go to the one you dislike “because they have strategy”

    http://www.discovery.org/

    And finally even more conservative but still worth looking at is the Answers in Genesis you could also order over 50 books written by PhD’s in relevant sciences giving their reasons why they object to the theory of Evolution and believe in God who is a designer.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/

    Ops I nearly forgot, we should not forget Dr Hugh Ross and his team from Reasons to Believe you can find their material here.

    http://www.reasons.org/

    I don’t know what else I can do to satisfy your claim that I have not given you enough to think about? Here is a material to keep you occupied for very long time. So take your time, and don’t get offended I am trying my best to be as reasonable as I can. But fact is we communicate through a written format and I have limited time. As much as I would love to spend more of my time with you I still have obligation to my Family (Wife and two children)
    Beside my challenge still stands I have yet to receive counter argument on all the points I brought in my last answer.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

    PS Here is the list of Evolution post on my blog just for you so you don’t think I am ignoring you. After all you did ask for it, enjoy.

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/from-evolution-to-creation-a-personal-testimony-of-dr-gary-parker/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/ken-millers-missed-assumption-on-evolution/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/charles-darwin-galapagos-finches/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/intelligent-design-is-not-creationism/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/evolution-loves-god/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/was-the-universe-designed/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/walter-j-veith-from-evolutionist-to-creationis-testimony/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/1498/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/the-rhetoric-of-charles-darwin/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/questions-and-answer-session-where-do-we-get-our-morals-from/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life-free-bible-software/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/logical-fallacies-bifurcation/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/statistical-probability-of-evolution-challenged-2/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/cambrian-explosion-vs-darwins-tree-of-life-2/

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/questioning-the-theory-of-evolution/

  8. There are few issues that need to be addressed before I can accept your argument. But before I go anywhere may I again say thanks for such detailed and easy to understand explanation.

    Let me start by saying, parts of what you said is correct and parts are just not applicable in our argument.

    I don’t see our reasoning about this subject to be simplistic coin toss, it is far more complicated than that. You will note that my argument is that even if evolution is true it would have to be guided and that would defeat some of the premises of the theory. Secondly falsifying evidence is often used by evolution proponents but what is not said is that this evidence can often be interpreted in a completely different way. Secondly I agree with you that evolution exists and is recorded. But note that I caveat that by saying that these changes are gradual and always seam to oscillate as the conditions change plus, I still can’t see why this gradual change should be used to say that we can see frog changing into elephant over many years. I think this is dependent on the interpretive methodology rather than the data.

    As someone who works with statistics I can assure you that when one information is discredited then the next one is considered potentially as valid source of answer to the question. Lastly precisely because ID stipulates that if God created everything there should be enough information in things like DNA or other designed features that could not simultaneously evolve part at the time as function would be lost. What we observe is precisely that. We see blueprint many times over, complexity of eye, knee joint and others, where simply evolving one part at the time would not give rise to the organ that serves designed purpose. I am aware of all the objections and explanations given by the evolution proponents I just don’t buy it yet until my questions are not answered with observable data rather than deriving to that conclusion simply because there are few bits that may possibly be explained in a way to support evolution.

    Finally, you are correct that, my view is that the verdict is not closed; I do believe that my assumptions are faith driven, but likewise I would argue that this to be the case with those who support evolution. Only difference is that I’m happy to own up to it. I do however believe that what we observe through reverse engineering is that we can demonstrate complexity that is not explained by process of evolution and that leads me to accept God as creator.

    Thanks again for such detailed reply.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  9. harry says:

    Giving me something to think about is not evidence.

    I am going to butcher all of this, obviously not all at once.

    https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/five-questions-evolutionists-would-rather-dodge-william-a-dembski/

    The darwins predictions link wont work for me at mo, so i’ll come back ot it.

    ”Most evolutionists give the impression that evolution is a settled fact of science, on the order of the Earth being round or revolving around the Sun. Evolution, we are assured, has been overwhelmingly confirmed. Only rubes and ignoramuses debate evolution. Any resistance to it is futile and indicates bad faith or worse.”

    There is no evidence or assertion in that paragraph

    ”For instance, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins accuses those who refuse to accept evolution with being “ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” To this he recently added: “I don’t withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under ‘insane’ but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.””

    There is no evidence or assertion in that paragraph

    ”Despite such bluster, evolutionary theory is in sad shape. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, recently remarked:

    “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus….” To the public, the evolutionary establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates once you know where to look and what questions to ask.”

    Creationist quote mining again. Simon Conway Moris is a champion of science and evoltion and a fierce critic of intelligent design. Creationists even used to quote mine Dawkins before it would have been obvious that it was a quote mined statement to quote him. He is obviously a christian but he has made comments that indicate he does not believe man is the pinnacle of creation.

    Mr Dembski is using Simon Morris’ quote to support that evolution is in a sorry state. Something Simon Morris would not agree with. Further, the quote is Mr Dembski’s only evidence for evolution being in a sorry state. That evidence has now been dismantled….Feel free to look it up. But I think you will have to agree this has has been dismantled.

    1: The fossil record. I will quote the important points

    ” Evolutionists have gotten quite good at sidestepping this question with what looks like an answer but really isn’t. Typically they’ll lay out a bunch of organisms or biological structures and say, “Look at how similar these are. They’ve obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.” Evolutionists will then ply you with a mass of details about supposedly wellconfirmed evolutionary transitions (like those supposedly describing the evolution of horses, whales, or reptiles into mammals).

    With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found.

    For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.

    The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion”

    one at a time

    ”With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found.”

    Yes he would be right. IF we took all the fossils we had, put them in a huge pile and put them together so it looked like they evolved, fair enough.

    But it doesn’t work like that. They are all dated, analysed and processed. If we find a fossil that is 50 million years old, we can not say something 100 million years older evolved from it. The fact is, we take these evolutionary lines from specific time periods and strata and geographical regions. We dont take a horse like creature from china that is 35million years old and say it is evolved from a creature 20 million years old from america. The way this is portrayed is that we have thousands of tons of bones and pick and choose.

    ”For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.”

    I don’t know anything about this but once again appeals to the fact that we have not found a fossil. The reason the author picks this one in particular because we do have fossil evidence for other transitional forms. However this obviously is not good enough for him either. So why say ‘we don’t have any evidence’ if as soon as we do get evidence he won’t accept it anyway. He is putting forward a requirement that can not be fulfilled to him.

    We have found many fossils that indicate how different species might have/did speciate, creationists could continue picking out ones WE HAVEN’T FOUND forever, because we are never going to find them all.

    ”The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion”

    Why is it? Animals were only single celled life forms before this event. We would not expect to find complex fossils before this. Neil Shubins book ‘inner fish’ actually does discuss creatures that existed pre-cambrain. Also once again creationists point to an evolutionary event as evidence for their belief. If you are YEC you cant use the cambrian event, because you claim it did not happen.

    Plus the fact that all the major body plans of animals appeared then just shows how that we ‘all that change cant happen’ is bogus, as we have actually changed very little. Hence we share our body plan with all mammals.

    2. Natural Selection

    ”According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?”

    Ridiculous. He is saying you can not prove it is not designed, so it must be. Yes Dawkins can not KNOW it is not designed, but your author can not use this to support ID. HE MUST POINT TO EVIDENCE OF ID.

    I AM GOING TO PAUSE HERE AGAIN AND POINT OUT I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY EVIDENCE FOR ID OR CREATION IN THIS MANS ARTICLE.

    ”The great fallacy of evolution is that it claims all the benefits of design without the need for actual design.”
    Why is that a fallacy? Explain why it is? where is your evidence to say that is a fallacy?

    ” In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection”

    No it doesn’t at all. Infact one of the major misconceptions in evolution is that every progresses and that everything is improving. He is saying evolution attributes intelligence etc, when it doesn’t and none of evolutionary theory states it does. He is basicalyl saying ‘I say evolution does this, but it doesnt, so its wrong’ Despite evolution never claiming it does.

    ”It cannot plan for the future. It is incapable of deferring success or gratification. And yet, so limited a process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers.”

    WHY IS IT LIMITED? where is your EVIDENCE for it being limited? All he saying is that this is how natural selection works….isn’t it limited, how did it do that then?’ HE GIVES NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS OPINION THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS LIMITED, ITS JUST AN OPINION.

    ”3. Detecting Design

    The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?”

    ”But they reject out of hand the possibility of detecting design in biological systems.”

    No they don’t. No good scientist rejects the possibilty of anything.

    ”The double-standard here is obvious. There are reliable methods for identifying the effects of intelligence. These methods apply in many areas of science already. They even apply to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, in which the intelligence detected would be nonhuman. It is therefore completely arbitrary to say that such methods of design detection apply only to evolved intelligences but not to unevolved intelligences.”

    Yes it would be arbritary, if scientists had ever said that. He is attributing the phrase ‘intelligence will never be detected’ to scientists. WHICH SCIENTISTS SAID THIS? HE DOESN’T NAME ANY OF THEM. MANY SCIENTISTS SPENT THEIR ENTIRE LIVES LOOKING AT CELLS. IF THEY FOUND SOLID EVIDENCE OF DESIGN I DONT THINK ANYONE COULD KEEP A LID ON IT.

    the important thing is here. If you go looking for something, you will find it. That is basicallythe creationist mantra ‘where is the evidence to fit our conclusion. Scientists look at cells, they don’t rule anything out. They form conclusions from the evidence. So far, no evidence for ID.

    4. Molecular Machines

    Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

    God of the gaps. I will happily admit i don’t know how the flagellum evolved. Someone might. I don’t. But 50 years ago creationists were saying LOOK AT THE EYE, THAT CAN NOT POSSIBLY HAVE EVOLVED. we now have a pretty good idea of how it evolved. Maybe in 50 years we will find out how the flagellum came about.

    ”Despite thousands of research articles that have been written about the structure and function of the flagellum, biologists don’t have a clue how it could have evolved”

    SURPRISE SURPRISE THOUGH, SCIENTISTS ARE WORKING ON IT. I DON’T SEE ANY CREATIONISTS DOING ANY RESEARCH ON HOW TO SORT OUT THE INFINITE PROBLEMS OF CREATIONISM.

    5. Testability

    What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

    an animal in its modern form in rock strata 10s of millions of years old. For example a rabbit.

    I do hope this all makes sense to you DTW. This article didn’t even stretch my brain.

  10. harry says:

    plus i’ll just point out.

    you said

    ”There is loads of staff on this blog that could help dispel the idea that what atheists are peddling as truth is hypothesis and factually incorrect. Either videos or post linked to other blogs and even some of the comments and answers to your questions.”

    Yes there is loads of stuff in this blog. But in that article atleast…there is certainly NO EVIDENCE FOR ID, or evidence against evolution. I pointed that out as often as i could remember. I hope you re-read the article as you read my reply, and realise that everything i say is correct. and importantly, that there is no evidence. Which is why I said to you

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, there may be opinions, and arguments and even assertions, but there IS NO EVIDENCE.

  11. harry says:

    SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS IT MAKES IT EASER TO DISTINGUISH MY WRITING FROM THE AUTHORS.
    from Darwins Predictions. Design of life predictions

    ….there was substantial ignorance of how biology worked….. ) ONLY THIS FROM THE INTRO NEEDS TO BE ADDED, AS IT IS RELEVANT TO A LATER POINT.

    But Paley worked within the design perspective. With Darwin’s theory of evolution, that perspective dramatically shifted. Darwin speculated that life first might have arisen in a warm little pond where protein molecules happened to assemble to form the first living entity. [2] If organisms arose via such unguided, natural processes then one should hardly expect elegant designs or clever mechanisms. The fundamental unit of life, the cell, was typically characterized as a mere building block or as an elementary organism, rather than complex machine, [3] and evolutionists interpreted the biological world to be full of clumsy designs. [4]

    ”If organisms arose via such unguided, natural processes then one should hardly expect elegant designs or clever mechanisms. ”

    Why would one not expect that? Give a reason? It is infact exactly how we would expect, with increasing complexity at a time. This is once again, not even an assertion, but an opinion, one that is not backed by evidence.

    ”As evolutionary thinking took hold, organisms were increasingly viewed as clumsy and happenstance contraptions. In 1871 Darwin’s book The Descent of Man listed several structures in the human body he thought had become unimportant in the evolutionary process. Darwin argued that via the evolutionary process the appendix, for instance, had reduced in length and was now useless. This was the evolutionary expectation.

    In 1888 the American evolutionist Joseph Le Conte added to this list of evolutionary leftovers he argued existed in various animals. The whale’s teeth and the embryonic development of fish, revealed the crude works of evolution.

    In 1893 German anatomist Robert Wiedersheim added to Darwin’s list and found eighty-six organs he deemed to be evolutionary leftovers and of less physiological significance than they once were. Adenoids and tonsils, lymphatic tissues, the pineal, pituitary, thyroid and thymus glands, ear muscles, body hair and the three smallest toes all made Wiedersheim’s list of structures that were supposed to be losing their importance as the human body evolved. In later years Wiedersheim’s list grew and even was invoked in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial to argue that humans are “a veritable walking museum of antiquities.”

    Darwin’s expectation that evolution would leave a trail of decaying structures continued in the twentieth century. As evolution was envisioned to produce new species and new designs, it was thought the path inevitably would be littered with leftover designs because life was assumed to be the product of unintelligent forces of nature.

    All of this means that when new designs were first investigated they often were assumed to be rather simple. If the workings of new biological findings were confusing or not understood, then evolutionists typically would assume a minor function, if any at all. These expectations have consistently been wrong.”

    This is hilarious. AFTER SAYING BIOLOGISTS WERE IGNORANT OF HOW THINGS WORKED. HE GOES ON TO QUOTE BIOLOGISTS OVER 100 YEARS OLD, AND THEN SAYS THEIR ASSERTIONS OF CONSISTENTLY BEEN WRONG.

    ”Our appendix was thought to be a shriveled-up remnant because it was shorter than that of the rabbit’s. But the appendix has since been found to be larger and more distinct than its counterpart in the other primates.”

    So what? that doesn’t mean anything.

    ”Darwin’s theory predicts that we should find the leftovers of the evolutionary process, not sophisticated machines.”

    No it doesn’t.

    ”But despite his ruminations of how these evolutionary expectations were unmet, Alberts continued to use evolution as his guide later in the article. And years later evolutionists continued to be astounded. As one researcher exclaimed a decade later, “It’s amazing to us. We thought the cell was so simple.” ”
    JUST BECAUSE A CELL IS COMPLEX NOW, DOES NOT MEAN IT USED TO BE.

    ”Evolution is not an intelligent process so evolutionists are amazed by what we find in biology. There is another reason why evolution expected cells to be relatively simple, and it stems from a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory. A key premise of the theory is that genetic mutations are the main fuel for evolutionary change. That is, it has been a fundamental tenet of evolution that DNA gene mutations are an important source of the unguided biological variation upon which natural selection acts to morph one species into the next. Thus evolutionists focused narrowly on the genes in the DNA molecule. As one science writer put it, genes were at the center of the biological universe, much as ancient astronomers believed sun and stars revolved around the earth. [11]

    Evolutionists compared genes across the different species to understand better their evolutionary relationships. For according to evolution, changes in those genes were the main cause of the origin of species. An obvious problem with this view arose when the human and chimp genes were found to be practically identical, with only minor differences between them. These differences could hardly explain the differences between the human and chimp, yet evolutionists ignored these obvious indications that genes play a less important role in determining the organism’s design. Indeed, evolutionists maintained the centrality of genes, and erroneously argued that the high genetic similarity between the human and chimp was powerful evidence for their common ancestry.”

    I AM SORRY WHAT?! THE AUTHOR BASICALLY SAYS. ”HUMANS AND CHIMPS HAVE VERY SIMILAIR DNA. THEREFORE THEY CAN’T HAVE EVOLVED. EVOLUTIONISTS SAY THIS IS ACTUALLY EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. ITS NOT.

    HE TAKES THE FACT THAT WE SHARE 95%+ DNA WITH CHIMPANZEES AND CLAIMS ITS EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION AND WRITES OFF THAT IT IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION BY JUST SAYING ‘its an erronous argument”. I MEAN SERIOUSLY?! REALLY? DO YOU NOT SEE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE? ITS JUST AN UNBACKED ASSERTION.

    ”Such a large quantity of DNA must, it seemed, have a function. Yet some non-genic DNA varied substantially between even highly similar species. Evolution predicts that important DNA is preserved. It should be similar in similar species. In other words, similar species should not have DNA segments that are both substantially different and important.”

    I AM SORRY BUT I CAN’T GET OVER THE STUPIDITY OF THIS. NOT 2 PARAGRAPHS BEFORE THIS, THE AUTHOR STATES THE SIMILAIRITY OF CHIMP AND HUMAN DNA IS ‘erronously argued to support evolution’. AND NOW HE IS SAYING THE TOTAL OPPOSITE, THAT DNA SHOULD BE SIMILAIR IN SPECIES FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE, BUT ITS NOT.

    I MEAN COME ON, HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON HIS CENTRAL POINT IN TWO PARAGRAPHS.

    ‘The findings did not match evolutionary expectations and evolutionists could only guess at the role of all the non-genic DNA. A variety of minor functions were considered as well as the possibility that the majority of the genome was useless. Terms such as “junk,” “parasitic,” “selfish,” and “greedy” DNA were coined. [12] The genome increasingly was viewed as a motley collection of DNA, and this view fueled a new powerful argument for evolution, for only evolution would create such chaos.’

    Again the evolutionary expectations were substantially misleading. Not only have major, fundamental roles been discovered for much of the non-genic DNA, but its various functions are highly complex, far beyond anything evolutionists expected. One phenomenally complex example is the fine-tuned micro RNAs (MiRNAs) that perform a variety of regulatory jobs. [13]

    Evolution did not expect this unseen complexity buried within the cell. As one evolutionist lamented, “The picture that’s emerging is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it’s almost depressing,” [11]

    SCIENTISTS MAKE PREDICTIONS ALL THE TIME AND GET IT WRONG, THAT IS WHY THEORIES CHANGE AND ARE UPDATED. ESSENTIALLY THIS MAN CRITICISES EVOLUTIONISTS FOR FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. THESE EVOLUTIONISTS DID RESEARCH AND WERE FORCED TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT THINGS. WHEN HAS CREATIONIST EVER DONE THAT? THERE IS NO COMPROMISE IN CREATIONISM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PRE-DETERMINED CONCLUSION, THEY MUST FIND EVIDENCE TO FIT IT. THE CONCLUSION OF EVOLUTION HAS ALWAYS CHANGED TO KEEP UP WITH EVIDENCE.

    ONCE AGAIN THAT ENTIRE SECTION HAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATION. AND ALL IT DOES IS POINT HOW COMPLICATED CELLS ARE, AND HOW THAT COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED. BUT FAILS TO SAY WHY IT COULDNT HAVE EVOLVED.

  12. That all depends on what the definition of Evidence you like to use. All of your data is open to interpretation and therefore could not be classed as evidence. Please learn the difference between speculation and data which Conclusively proves the point.

    Defend the Word

  13. HARRY: [“Giving me something to think about is not evidence. I am going to butcher all of this, obviously not all at once.”]
    Defend the Word: This statement betrays your self assurance, as I use to say to some of my friends arrogance usually leads to ignorance. Being willing to learn is a great quality and should never be neglected.

    Dembski: “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus….” To the public, the evolutionary establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates once you know where to look and what questions to ask.”

    HARRY: [“Creationist quote mining again. Simon Conway Moris is a champion of science and evoltion and a fierce critic of intelligent design. Creationists even used to quote mine Dawkins before it would have been obvious that it was a quote mined statement to quote him. He is obviously a christian but he has made comments that indicate he does not believe man is the pinnacle of creation. Mr Dembski is using Simon Morris’ quote to support that evolution is in a sorry state. Something Simon Morris would not agree with. Further, the quote is Mr Dembski’s only evidence for evolution being in a sorry state. That evidence has now been dismantled….Feel free to look it up. But I think you will have to agree this has has been dismantled.”]

    Defend the Word: First let me start I am aware of people retracting their statements, but when pushed if they have made them they own up especially as these are quotes from journals and books. Fact that someone retracts them points out to the amount of pressure they face as soon as they try to be honest. So your argument just shows how Evolution has been treated like sacred cow and nothing should dare to challenge that. His comments are not only welcomed but required reading otherwise readers would get wrong impression that all is perfect in “fairytale Evolution”. I would go as far to say that as the views got more polarised both sides have gone to extremes without considering full implications. But in the case of Dr Dembski I would say that as someone who has enormous amount of knowledge and understanding of the subject is far better qualified then you and I.

    1: The fossil record. I will quote the important points

    Dr Dembski: ” Evolutionists have gotten quite good at sidestepping this question with what looks like an answer but really isn’t. Typically they’ll lay out a bunch of organisms or biological structures and say, “Look at how similar these are. They’ve obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.” Evolutionists will then ply you with a mass of details about supposedly well confirmed evolutionary transitions (like those supposedly describing the evolution of horses, whales, or reptiles into mammals).
    With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found. For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.
    The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion”

    HARRY: one at a time

    Dr Dembski: ”With millions of fossils to choose from, it is likely that some gradual progressions will be found.”

    HARRY: [“Yes he would be right. IF we took all the fossils we had, put them in a huge pile and put them together so it looked like they evolved, fair enough.
    But it doesn’t work like that. They are all dated, analysed and processed. If we find a fossil that is 50 million years old, we can not say something 100 million years older evolved from it. The fact is, we take these evolutionary lines from specific time periods and strata and geographical regions. We dont take a horse like creature from china that is 35million years old and say it is evolved from a creature 20 million years old from america. The way this is portrayed is that we have thousands of tons of bones and pick and choose.”]

    Defend the Word: Actually in the same way I highlighted, some misinterpretations and overreaching statements that are complete guess work. We are yet to find bones that say made in America or dated to 50025 BC. They pretend that they can do precisely that, often with incomplete skeletal records. This is not new Harry I am only surprised that you don’t know this. Evolution proponents have often used artists to help them depict what creature may or may not be looking like. Talk about the guess work.

    Dr Dembski: ”For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.”

    HARRY: [“I don’t know anything about this but once again appeals to the fact that we have not found a fossil. The reason the author picks this one in particular because we do have fossil evidence for other transitional forms. However this obviously is not good enough for him either. So why say ‘we don’t have any evidence’ if as soon as we do get evidence he won’t accept it anyway. He is putting forward a requirement that can not be fulfilled to him. We have found many fossils that indicate how different species might have/did speciate, creationists could continue picking out ones WE HAVEN’T FOUND forever, because we are never going to find them all.”]

    Defend the Word: Actually the only bone creationist like to pick is that the bones given as evidence are often incomplete, sometimes from different strata, sometimes relates to different species and sometimes liberal use of artists makes science completely impossible. I know you are going to tell me hey where is your evidence, so I should remind you of some museum exhibits that are highly controversial where through limited amount of bones (Very limited) they have managed to reconstruct entire creature.

    Dr Dembski: ”The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion”

    HARRY: [“Why is it? Animals were only single celled life forms before this event. We would not expect to find complex fossils before this. Neil Shubins book ‘inner fish’ actually does discuss creatures that existed pre-cambrain. Also once again creationists point to an evolutionary event as evidence for their belief. If you are YEC you cant use the cambrian event, because you claim it did not happen.
    Plus the fact that all the major body plans of animals appeared then just shows how that we ‘all that change cant happen’ is bogus, as we have actually changed very little. Hence we share our body plan with all mammals.”]

    Defend the word: I don’t understand your reasoning, you want to prevent Creationists using arguments simply because you don’t like them or because they destroy the very foundation of the theory of gradual evolution??? Secondly Why do you say that Dr Dembski would not accept Cambrian Explosion????

    2. Natural Selection

    Dr Dembski: ”According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?”

    HARRY: [“Ridiculous. He is saying you can not prove it is not designed, so it must be. Yes Dawkins can not KNOW it is not designed, but your author can not use this to support ID. HE MUST POINT TO EVIDENCE OF ID.
    I AM GOING TO PAUSE HERE AGAIN AND POINT OUT I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY EVIDENCE FOR ID OR CREATION IN THIS MANS ARTICLE.”]

    Defend the Word: Actually what you are saying is you can make assertions but others are not allowed to do that. What Dr Dembski is doing in this particular article is picking Evolution apart hence the title of the post. But I guess you are so blinded with your faith that you miss the main point of the article.

    Dr Dembski: ”The great fallacy of evolution is that it claims all the benefits of design without the need for actual design.”

    HARRY: [“Why is that a fallacy? Explain why it is? where is your evidence to say that is a fallacy?”]

    Defend the Word: Let me show you a clear example that Dr Alister McGrath highlighted as one of the biggest problems with the process of evolution and is as follows: For evolution to happen you need these small DNA and RNA parts to communicate and they have to decide according to evolution what is good and what is bad for them and then accordingly they would decide that positive evolution should be adopted but bad one would simply be ignored in the future. It is not enough to say that they would simply die out, i.e. what is to prevent organisms to repeating same errors and therefore continue to copy negative characteristics.
    Dr Dembski: ” In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection”

    HARRY: [“No it doesn’t at all. In fact one of the major misconceptions in evolution is that every progresses and that everything is improving. He is saying evolution attributes intelligence etc, when it doesn’t and none of evolutionary theory states it does. He is basicalyl saying ‘I say evolution does this, but it doesnt, so its wrong’ Despite evolution never claiming it does.”]

    Defend the Word: As per my explanation borrowed from Professor McGrath I beg to differ here, and I believe that therefore for evolution to happen it would be more remarkable then the creation story. Either way they give glory to God once you understand the process completely. And don’t simply ignore the difficulty that is presented with “selection that Nature” would choose.

    Dr Dembski: ”It cannot plan for the future. It is incapable of deferring success or gratification. And yet, so limited a process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers.”

    HARRY: [“WHY IS IT LIMITED? where is your EVIDENCE for it being limited? All he saying is that this is how natural selection works….isn’t it limited, how did it do that then?’ HE GIVES NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS OPINION THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS LIMITED, ITS JUST AN OPINION.”]

    Defend the Word: I think if I dare say it here, Harry you don’t understand the process of evolution, if it has two options one to change or not change that is simple process of gradual change. Unless you would like to propose something different in your theory, with multiple choices being presented simultaneously all at the same time over and over again? This is not the first time you are saying something that is not in accordance to the theory. Evolution presents gradual change and therefore is always going to be limited to time; chance and blind selection of good change over bad. Remember my earlier point on how unintelligent cell could decide what change is good for the benefit of humanity.

    ”3. Detecting Design

    “The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?”
    ”But they reject out of hand the possibility of detecting design in biological systems.”

    HARRY: [“No they don’t. No good scientist rejects the possibilty of anything.”]

    Defend the word; Actually that is your assertion here, most scientist shudder at the thought that some of his/her discoveries may be used to disprove evolution as that would only damage their reputation. We are talking about well established icon of a theory that is loved as a way to move from superstition to the “intelligent” reasoning.

    Dr Dembski: ”The double-standard here is obvious. There are reliable methods for identifying the effects of intelligence. These methods apply in many areas of science already. They even apply to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, in which the intelligence detected would be nonhuman. It is therefore completely arbitrary to say that such methods of design detection apply only to evolved intelligences but not to unevolved intelligences.”

    HARRY: [“Yes it would be arbritary, if scientists had ever said that. He is attributing the phrase ‘intelligence will never be detected’ to scientists. WHICH SCIENTISTS SAID THIS? HE DOESN’T NAME ANY OF THEM. MANY SCIENTISTS SPENT THEIR ENTIRE LIVES LOOKING AT CELLS. IF THEY FOUND SOLID EVIDENCE OF DESIGN I DONT THINK ANYONE COULD KEEP A LID ON IT.
    the important thing is here. If you go looking for something, you will find it. That is basicallythe creationist mantra ‘where is the evidence to fit our conclusion. Scientists look at cells, they don’t rule anything out. They form conclusions from the evidence. So far, no evidence for ID.”]

    Defend the Word: You have obviously forgotten our conversation about Dr Behi and his concept of Irreducible Complexity, which incidentally has persuaded some to change their opinion on the subject of evolution.

    4. Molecular Machines
    Dr Dembski: Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

    HARRY: [“God of the gaps. I will happily admit i don’t know how the flagellum evolved. Someone might. I don’t. But 50 years ago creationists were saying LOOK AT THE EYE, THAT CAN NOT POSSIBLY HAVE EVOLVED. we now have a pretty good idea of how it evolved. Maybe in 50 years we will find out how the flagellum came about.”]

    Defend the Word: More like Theory of Evolution of the gaps. Actually the question of eye is not answered, the only way they can answer that is to line up many different species and say, you see this one is less complicated then that one, does they do precisely what you tried to reject earlier where you have millions of bones put in one place. I have yet to find one good example where one human specimen can be shown that they have evolved from primitive to more complex eye change due to positive change in evolution with net gain of information. This has never ever, been observed in nature. So your answer about they eye is simply fairytale that you are happy to accept.

    Dr Dembski: ”Despite thousands of research articles that have been written about the structure and function of the flagellum, biologists don’t have a clue how it could have evolved”

    HARRY: SURPRISE SURPRISE THOUGH, SCIENTISTS ARE WORKING ON IT. I DON’T SEE ANY CREATIONISTS DOING ANY RESEARCH ON HOW TO SORT OUT THE INFINITE PROBLEMS OF CREATIONISM.
    Defend the Word: There is no surprise Harry, only deliberate deception and lies in order to protect some reputation whilst doing their best to ruin many others who are not in the same camp as they are. I call that intellectual bullying and running away from the facts.

    5. Testability

    What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?
    HARRY: an animal in its modern form in rock strata 10s of millions of years old. For example a rabbit. I do hope this all makes sense to you DTW. This article didn’t even stretch my brain.
    Defend the Word: Thanks for your attempt, but what I find is some of your assertion are simply either misinformation on the facts, like the evolution of eye. And misunderstanding what the author is trying to say. Fact that Theory of Evolution had to change ins tune on several occasions as I pointed out to you before with Punctuated Equilibrium shows that when you are prepared to change it every time its challenged yet you have no evidence so you are in fact still using hypothetical explanation you are still committing yourself to wishful thinking rather than factual data. It is very difficult to disprove theory when you have so much fluidity and freedom to change at will.

    Lastly, why don’t you ask yourself why do people persist with the theory when often there are obstacles that can not be crossed unless you use faith. What is the difference then between you and me? You may disagree and say my data is scientific but I will have to challenge you there and say, that on the information I have read and some is recorded here and others linked to other blogs from this blog. Show that much of it is shaky and some of it was doctored in the past and much of it is simply guess work.

    I’m sorry that this post did not stretch your brain, but maybe that is due to the fact that once you are indoctrinated there is little space left for reasoning, I just wish you could understand that both sides use faith in their arguments.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  14. harry says:

    ”I’m sorry that this post did not stretch your brain, but maybe that is due to the fact that once you are indoctrinated there is little space left for reasoning, I just wish you could understand that both sides use faith in their arguments.”

    Like I said defend. I didn’t want to give evidence. My mandate over the coming weeks in attacking every single one of the links you posted will be to show that none of them ahve evidence in them.

    YOU SAID ‘I HAVE GIVEN YOU MUCH EVIDENCE TO TIHNK ABOUT’

    I dont care if you dont think i have no evidence myself, or that there is no evidence for evolution and that it is a matter of faith. That is no longer the exercise.

    The exercise is to not deconstruct ALL of the links to show that they contain no evidence. In that article. Mr Dembski gave no evidence for intelligent design. The fact you did not argue that point tells me i have done my job in regards to that individual post.

  15. Can I repeat the same thing again, title of the post is what you are not told about evolution, and it’s not called Evidence for ID. You should learn to distinguish between the two. But most of all his argument about complexity that is not explained stands firm and still not refuted. Your refusal to accept that information is not my problem that is personal preference that can only be changed by yourself.

    Defend the Word

  16. harry says:

    ”The only figure in Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, showed how he envisioned species branching off of one another. As Fig. 9 shows, over time new species are supposed to arise creating a branching pattern. Species that are quite different, such as elephants and worms, are placed on distant parts of the evolutionary tree. Their common ancestor is supposed to date far back in time (see Section 4.3). On the other hand, allied species, such as slugs and snails, are placed on neighboring twigs of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists think that their common ancestor is relatively recent.”

    CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF DARWINS IDEAS, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PHENOTYPES ANYWAY.

    Because similar species are thought to share a relatively recent common ancestor, they are assumed to have not had much time to evolve differences between them. That explains why they are similar, and it also predicts that such species do not have significant differences. Their genome differences should be minor. This is because evolution is limited by the rate at which genetic variations can appear and subsequently spread throughout the respective lineages. For instance, consider two species which are supposed to share a common ancestor dating back only a few millions of years, such as the human and chimp. Evolution expected that such cousin species would have quite similar genes. There would be no new genes evolved in such a brief time period. Indeed, for decades evolutionists have cited minor genetic differences between such allied species as powerful evidence for evolution

    OK….

    ”In order for new genes to arise, a much longer time would be required. Such new genes were predicted to arise via the duplication of an existing gene. [6,7] If such duplications produced a non-functional gene then the gene could begin to mutate. The mutations would not cause problems if the gene was already non-functional. The mutations could accumulate, and perhaps luckily produce a new functional gene at a much later time. Of course none of this explains how genes arose in the first place, but that is a different problem (see Section 2.1).”

    ”In order for new genes to arise, a much longer time would be required. ”

    WHY? ANOTHER ASSERTION/OPINION MADE WITH NO BACKING EVIDENCE. IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN THAT NEW GENETIC INFORMATION CAN ARISE QUITE QUICKLY IN STUDIES INVOLVING BACTERIA. (DONT BOTHER SAYING CHANGES IN BACTERIA IS NOT EVOLUTION, REMEMBER I AM DISCUSSING ID EVIDENCE).

    ‘Of course none of this explains how genes arose in the first place, but that is a different problem’

    YES IT IS, AND ONE QUITE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

    ”There certainly are many genetic similarities between allied species, but we now know of dramatic differences and the list is growing. This prediction has been falsified as many unexpected genetic differences have since been discovered amongst a wide range of allied species. Even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins”

    GASP!! THE FIRST ASSERTION ON THIS WEBSTIE WHICH IS BACKED WITH EVIDENCE!! CONSIDERING THAT UNIQUE GENES HAVE ARISEN IN BACTERIAL EXPERIMENTS ONLY 10 YEARS OLD I CAN SEE MILLIONS OF YEARS BEING QUITE CAPABLE OF GIVING HUNDREDS. THAT SAID I DONT KNOW HOW OLD THE GENUS Escherichia IS.

    Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes.

    NOW THIS IS SILLY AGAIN. THE AUTHOR GIVES AN EXAMPLE, BUT HIS CONCLUSION IS DISCONNECTED FROM IT.

    ”These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years”

    WHY WOULD THEY HAVE HAD TO? HE GIVES NO REASON WHY IT TAKES NOVEL GENES MILLIONS OF YEARS TO EVOLVE.

    ”a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes.”

    THERE MAY BE LARGE DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENT BREEDS OF THE FRUIT FLY. HOWEVER THE GREATNESS/SMALLNESS PF THE SIMILAIRTY IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS RELY UPON. IT IS THE FACT THAT THE FRUIT FLY GENOTYPES ARE MORE SIMILAIR TO EACH OTHER THAN ANY OTHER SPECIES. UNLESS SOMEONE FINDS A FRUIT FLY WITH A GENOTYPE MORE SIMILAIR TO A MOOSE THAN ANOTHER FRUIT FLY, THEN THIS ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT. THE SPEED OF WHICH THE GENOTYPES CHANGE IS NOT IMPORTANT TO EVOLUTION, ONLY THAT THEY ARE SIMILAIR. IF THEY HAVE DIVERGED A LONG TIME SO BE IT.

    ”Such findings are not limited to bacteria and insects, and substantial genetic differences, in otherwise allied species, are now undeniable. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that new genes can be manufactured in response to environmental pressures. For instance, in the 1970s bacteria were found that could metabolize nylon, even though nylon synthesis had begun only a few decades earlier. Bacteria had been exposed to nylon via the waste water from factories, and now the bacteria could live off the new chemical. The bacteria had modified an existing enzyme (mainly via a frameshift) to create a new enzyme that degrades nylon oligomers. The slow, unguided mechanism envisioned by evolutionists could not have reacted so quickly. And furthermore the mechanism is repeatable as the enzyme has been found more than once. As one evolutionist admitted, “The swiftness with which these two enzymes have evolved is truly remarkable, for several decades are but a flash in the evolutionary time scale”

    GOOD GRIEF.

    ”Such findings are not limited to bacteria and insects, and substantial genetic differences, in otherwise allied species, are now undeniable.”

    AFTER SAYING THIS, HE GOES ON TO MENTION ANOTHER BACTERIA SPECIES.

    ‘Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that new genes can be manufactured in response to environmental pressures.”

    WELL THAT KIND OF IS WHAT EVOLUTION STATES SHOULD HAPPEN. EXCEPT THAT IT ISN’T MANUFACTURED IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE, IT IS JUST SELECTED BY IT

    ”The slow, unguided mechanism envisioned by evolutionists could not have reacted so quickly.”

    WHY COULD IT NOT HAVE REACTED SO QUICKLY? ASSERTION AGAIN WITH NO EVIDENCE. THIS SENTENCE ALSO DISPLAYS A GORSS MISUNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION. TO MENTION AN ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE AND THEN CALL EVOLUTION UNGUIDED IS JUST IGNORANCE OF THE TOPIC. ITS ALMOST AS IF THE AUTHOR THINKS EVOLUTION IS RANDOM.

    NO EVOLUTIONIST ENVISIONS EVOLUTION AS UNGUIDED IN THAT SENSE OF THE WORD.

    And furthermore the mechanism is repeatable as the enzyme has been found more than once. As one evolutionist admitted, “The swiftness with which these two enzymes have evolved is truly remarkable, for several decades are but a flash in the evolutionary time scale”

    ALL HE DOES HERE IS POINT TO AN UNNAMED EVOLUTIONIST SURPRISED BY THE DISCOVERY…

    ”More recent genome data also suggest other sophisticated mechanisms of gene creation. For instance, it appears that new genes may arise from shuffling both the modules that comprise genes (called exons) and the nearby regulatory sequences. Such chimeric structures can immediately confer novel functions. [6] This is one of several potential sophisticated mechanisms that can rapidly create new genes. For instance, another mechanism is retroposition which is the insertion of an edited gene back into the DNA. By inserting the gene next to a different regulatory sequence, the gene can immediately be expressed at different times or conditions”

    I DONT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THAT BUT ITS NOT EXACTLY EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY EVIDENCE FOR ID

    ”In one interesting example that involved retroposition, a monkey protein that protects against retroviruses appears to have exons from two other proteins. And like the nylon metabolizing enzyme, the process apparently was repeated. This unlikely protein has been found in species in Asia and in South America. [10] There is much yet to learn, but the evolutionary predictions have not fared well. Many novel genes have been found in otherwise allied species, and several sophisticated, fast-acting, mechanisms have been identified”

    NO NO NO, THIS IS TOTALLY BOGUS. FIRST LETS CONCLUDE THAT THIS SECTION OF THE AUTHORS ESSAY ALSO HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR ID (I DONT EVEN THINK ITS MEANT TO). EVOLUTION PREDICTS MUTATION IN THE GENES, AND HE SAYS BECAUSE WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT HAPPENING, IT MEANS EVOLUTIONS PREDICTIONS ARE WRONG. HE IS BASICALLY SAYING YES YOU HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION, BUTS ITS HAPPENED TO FAST SO IT CANT BE RIGHT. ALL THE WHILE GIVING NO REASON EVOLUTION CANT HAPPEN QUICKLY.

    PLUS, EARLIER IN THE ESSAY HE STATES:

    ”These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes”

    HE TALKS ABOUT NOVEL GENES NOT HAVING THE TIME TO EVOLVE, BUT BOTH IN THE CHIMPANZEE AND IN THE ECOLI THE GENES HAVE NOT EVOLVED FROM SCRATCH THEY ARE MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING GENES.

    ANOTHER ARTICLE DEFEND THE WORD THAT GIVES NO EVIDENCE FOR ID. THIS ONE DOESNT EVEN GIVE ME ANYTHING TO THINK ABOUT ID.

  17. harry says:

    ”Can I repeat the same thing again, title of the post is what you are not told about evolution, and it’s not called Evidence for ID.”

    yes but defend, you linked all these posts under the context of

    ”So please let this be the last time you say such thing as evidence was not presented.”

    I am going through these posts, and showing you that you havent presented any evidence.

  18. harry says:

    Further

    In this case, the impossible is evolution’s prediction that there are no novel genes in allied species; the improbable is the evolution of such genes.

    i dont think any evolutionist ever predicted no novel genes in similair species.

    ”Despite this growing trend and the falsifications above, evolutionists continue to be certain that the genes evolved. One way or another, novel genes must have evolved. As one evolutionist remarked, quoting Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” [10] In this case, the impossible is evolution’s prediction that there are no novel genes in allied species; the improbable is the evolution of such genes.”

    He seems to be saying here that the genes did evolve. goodness knows he gave enough supporting evidence in his post. unless he believes they just pop into existence in these bacteriaand monkeys.

  19. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS IT MAKES IT EASER TO DISTINGUISH MY WRITING FROM THE AUTHORS.
    from Darwins Predictions. Design of life predictions

    ….there was substantial ignorance of how biology worked….. ) ONLY THIS FROM THE INTRO NEEDS TO BE ADDED, AS IT IS RELEVANT TO A LATER POINT.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: But Paley worked within the design perspective. With Darwin’s theory of evolution, that perspective dramatically shifted. Darwin speculated that life first might have arisen in a warm little pond where protein molecules happened to assemble to form the first living entity. [2] If organisms arose via such unguided, natural processes then one should hardly expect elegant designs or clever mechanisms. The fundamental unit of life, the cell, was typically characterized as a mere building block or as an elementary organism, rather than complex machine, [3] and evolutionists interpreted the biological world to be full of clumsy designs. [4]

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”If organisms arose via such unguided, natural processes then one should hardly expect elegant designs or clever mechanisms. ”

    HARRY: Why would one not expect that? Give a reason? It is infact exactly how we would expect, with increasing complexity at a time. This is once again, not even an assertion, but an opinion, one that is not backed by evidence.

    Defend the Word: Harry you are misunderstanding this big time, what Dr Hunter is saying is that cell complexity was not understood at the time this prediction was made, secondly increased complexity from primitive sources that evolution stipulates about requires faith in that process., You must understand that for your world view to work you have primitive very, very, very primitive cells growing in complexity somehow deciding to incise their information and rejecting all potential negative affects that evolution also brings with mutation.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”As evolutionary thinking took hold, organisms were increasingly viewed as clumsy and happenstance contraptions. In 1871 Darwin’s book The Descent of Man listed several structures in the human body he thought had become unimportant in the evolutionary process. Darwin argued that via the evolutionary process the appendix, for instance, had reduced in length and was now useless. This was the evolutionary expectation.
    In 1888 the American evolutionist Joseph Le Conte added to this list of evolutionary leftovers he argued existed in various animals. The whale’s teeth and the embryonic development of fish, revealed the crude works of evolution.
    In 1893 German anatomist Robert Wiedersheim added to Darwin’s list and found eighty-six organs he deemed to be evolutionary leftovers and of less physiological significance than they once were. Adenoids and tonsils, lymphatic tissues, the pineal, pituitary, thyroid and thymus glands, ear muscles, body hair and the three smallest toes all made Wiedersheim’s list of structures that were supposed to be losing their importance as the human body evolved. In later years Wiedersheim’s list grew and even was invoked in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial to argue that humans are “a veritable walking museum of antiquities.”
    Darwin’s expectation that evolution would leave a trail of decaying structures continued in the twentieth century. As evolution was envisioned to produce new species and new designs, it was thought the path inevitably would be littered with leftover designs because life was assumed to be the product of unintelligent forces of nature.
    All of this means that when new designs were first investigated they often were assumed to be rather simple. If the workings of new biological findings were confusing or not understood, then evolutionists typically would assume a minor function, if any at all. These expectations have consistently been wrong.”

    HARRY: This is hilarious. AFTER SAYING BIOLOGISTS WERE IGNORANT OF HOW THINGS WORKED. HE GOES ON TO QUOTE BIOLOGISTS OVER 100 YEARS OLD, AND THEN SAYS THEIR ASSERTIONS OF CONSISTENTLY BEEN WRONG.

    Defend the word: What? Sorry I fail to understand your argument here? Did you miss the point about predictability of the hypothesis and then see it miss the mark. This is what you argue for, is that not factual, we can retrace our conversations if that is what you want. What Dr Hunter is arguing is that these predictions proved to be wrong, again and again and again.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”Our appendix was thought to be a shriveled-up remnant because it was shorter than that of the rabbit’s. But the appendix has since been found to be larger and more distinct than its counterpart in the other primates.”

    HARRY: So what? that doesn’t mean anything.

    Defend the word: O yes it does, if is of utmost importance when you predict something to be working in certain way but it turns out to be wrong you have to check your theory. There is no two ways about it; it is scientific process that you so much love.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”Darwin’s theory predicts that we should find the leftovers of the evolutionary process, not sophisticated machines.”

    HARRY: No it doesn’t.

    Defend the Word: Did you not take on board anything he said earlier and fact that Evolution stipulates many vestigial organs is not new thing. You yet again argue against what Evolution is saying, you are confusing me all the time with your arguments that have more in common with defensive refusal to consider rather than looking at the evidence and then dealing with the issue at hand.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”But despite his ruminations of how these evolutionary expectations were unmet, Alberts continued to use evolution as his guide later in the article. And years later evolutionists continued to be astounded. As one researcher exclaimed a decade later, “It’s amazing to us. We thought the cell was so simple.” ”

    HARRY: JUST BECAUSE A CELL IS COMPLEX NOW, DOES NOT MEAN IT USED TO BE.

    Defend the word: Yes that is true, but even so, if you have complicated machinery at hand, you have to consider how purely thru chances can such complexity emerge and then become building blocks of all living creatures. Secondly we go back to the fact of timing in the construction process of these cells and fact that all these parts are important in order for cell to function correctly. You could not have one part evolve and then wait for long time for the next part to evolve some million years later. This information would not be useful without other parts, so some intelligence is required for this process to work in Evolution.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”Evolution is not an intelligent process so evolutionists are amazed by what we find in biology. There is another reason why evolution expected cells to be relatively simple, and it stems from a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory. A key premise of the theory is that genetic mutations are the main fuel for evolutionary change. That is, it has been a fundamental tenet of evolution that DNA gene mutations are an important source of the unguided biological variation upon which natural selection acts to morph one species into the next. Thus evolutionists focused narrowly on the genes in the DNA molecule. As one science writer put it, genes were at the center of the biological universe, much as ancient astronomers believed sun and stars revolved around the earth. [11]
    Evolutionists compared genes across the different species to understand better their evolutionary relationships. For according to evolution, changes in those genes were the main cause of the origin of species. An obvious problem with this view arose when the human and chimp genes were found to be practically identical, with only minor differences between them. These differences could hardly explain the differences between the human and chimp, yet evolutionists ignored these obvious indications that genes play a less important role in determining the organism’s design. Indeed, evolutionists maintained the centrality of genes, and erroneously argued that the high genetic similarity between the human and chimp was powerful evidence for their common ancestry.”

    HARRY: I AM SORRY WHAT?! THE AUTHOR BASICALLY SAYS. ”HUMANS AND CHIMPS HAVE VERY SIMILAIR DNA. THEREFORE THEY CAN’T HAVE EVOLVED. EVOLUTIONISTS SAY THIS IS ACTUALLY EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. ITS NOT.
    HE TAKES THE FACT THAT WE SHARE 95%+ DNA WITH CHIMPANZEES AND CLAIMS ITS EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION AND WRITES OFF THAT IT IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION BY JUST SAYING ‘its an erronous argument”. I MEAN SERIOUSLY?! REALLY? DO YOU NOT SEE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE? ITS JUST AN UNBACKED ASSERTION.

    Defend the Word: Actually what Dr Hunter is saying is that focus was misplaced on the DNA and not the fact that there are other issues that they should have also considered. I have previously mentioned that we have high percentage same with mouse but we don’t claim that we are related to them. So issue at hand is why do we only concentrate on one particular side but ignore the other. Also this 5% difference may appear to be small, but what you should remember is that when you deal with several billion letters you have loads of material that is not identical.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”Such a large quantity of DNA must, it seemed, have a function. Yet some non-genic DNA varied substantially between even highly similar species. Evolution predicts that important DNA is preserved. It should be similar in similar species. In other words, similar species should not have DNA segments that are both substantially different and important.”

    HARRY: I AM SORRY BUT I CAN’T GET OVER THE STUPIDITY OF THIS. NOT 2 PARAGRAPHS BEFORE THIS, THE AUTHOR STATES THE SIMILAIRITY OF CHIMP AND HUMAN DNA IS ‘erronously argued to support evolution’. AND NOW HE IS SAYING THE TOTAL OPPOSITE, THAT DNA SHOULD BE SIMILAIR IN SPECIES FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE, BUT ITS NOT.
    I MEAN COME ON, HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF ON HIS CENTRAL POINT IN TWO PARAGRAPHS.

    Defend the Word: Again I think you are in too much of a rush to judge that you are not considering what is being said. He expanded on what I said to you in previous reply. A. There is a significant number of differences in Genetic code. B.) These are not only numerical differences (In size of the code) but also important to the functions that they bring. It is simple really, as long as you are prepared to listen to the evidence.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter : ‘The findings did not match evolutionary expectations and evolutionists could only guess at the role of all the non-genic DNA. A variety of minor functions were considered as well as the possibility that the majority of the genome was useless. Terms such as “junk,” “parasitic,” “selfish,” and “greedy” DNA were coined. [12] The genome increasingly was viewed as a motley collection of DNA, and this view fueled a new powerful argument for evolution, for only evolution would create such chaos.’
    Again the evolutionary expectations were substantially misleading. Not only have major, fundamental roles been discovered for much of the non-genic DNA, but its various functions are highly complex, far beyond anything evolutionists expected. One phenomenally complex example is the fine-tuned micro RNAs (MiRNAs) that perform a variety of regulatory jobs. [13]
    Evolution did not expect this unseen complexity buried within the cell. As one evolutionist lamented, “The picture that’s emerging is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it’s almost depressing,” [11]

    HARRY: SCIENTISTS MAKE PREDICTIONS ALL THE TIME AND GET IT WRONG, THAT IS WHY THEORIES CHANGE AND ARE UPDATED. ESSENTIALLY THIS MAN CRITICISES EVOLUTIONISTS FOR FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. THESE EVOLUTIONISTS DID RESEARCH AND WERE FORCED TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT THINGS. WHEN HAS CREATIONIST EVER DONE THAT? THERE IS NO COMPROMISE IN CREATIONISM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PRE-DETERMINED CONCLUSION, THEY MUST FIND EVIDENCE TO FIT IT. THE CONCLUSION OF EVOLUTION HAS ALWAYS CHANGED TO KEEP UP WITH EVIDENCE.
    ONCE AGAIN THAT ENTIRE SECTION HAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATION. AND ALL IT DOES IS POINT HOW COMPLICATED CELLS ARE, AND HOW THAT COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED. BUT FAILS TO SAY WHY IT COULDNT HAVE EVOLVED.

    Defend the Word: It is your prerogative to choose to ignore such complexity and say this is not evidence however I find that so unscientific on your part. If the information is there it will need assertion and interpretation, which is precisely what theories do. Evolution often masquerades as science, it has infiltrated every aspect of our lives, with Evolution football, and Evolution video games, and even programs saying things like, survival of the fittest, and showing how people got killed due to not paying attention to basic principles of engineering etc, etc. I strongly believe that the more resistance we find to this theory more stupidity is peddled on TV in order to support it. However may I yet again say, that even if Evolution was true and that is BIG if. It would have had to be guided by intelligent cause which is precisely what Christians believe.

    Harry can I just say, please read this material at the slower pace as you are obviously missing much of what is being said.

    Regards

    Defend the word

  20. I disagree, fact that you have complexity, which can not be explained by the process of evolution like in our search for the alien life demonstrates that some intelligence was involved in designing life on this planate. Simple really once you put your mind to thinking about the processes and information that you are looking at. It’s no use saying this is not evidence. I can say same about anything you say. Remember we have information presented to us and we have to give some interpretation to that. We test it, if test results say, it is complex, it could not evolved on its own then it must be designed.

    Defend the word

  21. Further
    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: In this case, the impossible is evolution’s prediction that there are no novel genes in allied species; the improbable is the evolution of such genes.

    HARRY
    : I don’t think any evolutionist ever predicted no novel genes in similair species.

    Defend the word: Look at the links and footnotes for more information on that particular information.

    Dr Cornelius G. Hunter: ”Despite this growing trend and the falsifications above, evolutionists continue to be certain that the genes evolved. One way or another, novel genes must have evolved. As one evolutionist remarked, quoting Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” [10] In this case, the impossible is evolution’s prediction that there are no novel genes in allied species; the improbable is the evolution of such genes.”

    HARRY: He seems to be saying here that the genes did evolve. goodness knows he gave enough supporting evidence in his post. unless he believes they just pop into existence in these bacteria and monkeys.

    Defend the Word: I think your attempt to ridicule Dr Hunter is not justified, what I see is reasoning that is faultless, you again misinterpret given information and try to paint wrong picture. What Dr Hunter is saying is that they are making conclusion based on rejecting improbability of God being behind the design. Therefore Evolutionist feels it is correct to come to this unreasonable and contrary conclusion even though there is no evidence to support what they are saying. I.e. God could not have done it therefore even though evidence points us to design we will say it evolved because other option is eliminated due to lack of probability that Creation story is true.

    Again may I suggest you spend time reading this information slowly so you can take all the information in before, give your answers? Believe me I don’t enjoy pointing out all your errors, however if this helps in understanding what Dr Hunter is saying I will consider this exercise to be worth every penny.

    Defend the Word

  22. harry says:

    ” I have previously mentioned that we have high percentage same with mouse but we don’t claim that we are related to them.”

    yes evolutionists do claim we are related to mice, and yes evolution would expect our dna to be veery similair to that of a mouse.

    ”Therefore Evolutionist feels it is correct to come to this unreasonable and contrary conclusion even though there is no evidence to support what they are saying. I.e. God could not have done it therefore even though evidence points us to design we will say it evolved because other option is eliminated due to lack of probability that Creation story is true.”

    So you and hunter are suggesting the following:

    We found a new type of gene in a bacteria

    the gene allows it to digest nylon

    there are similair genes in other bacteria species that we can see have mutated into the correct gene.

    However that is not enough evidence to say it evolved.

    Evolutionists believe this despite the fact that there is ‘NO EVIDENCE’

    So therefore it was designed.

    ”It is your prerogative to choose to ignore such complexity and say this is not evidence however I find that so unscientific on your part”

    Defend you’ve said it. I hope you didn’t actually believe this, but you clearly do, and therefore i doubt there is any chance of you changing your mind. You have just stated it is unscientific to say complexity is not evidence.

    In science, the end product of an experiment or an event is called a result. Complexity is a result. You can not infer the method from the result. Saying complexity is evidence is infering a method from a result. ie

    biological systems are complex (result) therefore that is evidence for an intelligent design (method).

    I am going to give you a result…

    There is a positive correlation between temperature and diffusion.

    That is not evidence for anything, you can not deduce a method, theory or law from that statement.

    The only piece of evidence ID claims to have is complexity, and that is not even evidence.

  23. tildeb says:

    Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

    One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

    ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

    The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

    Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

    I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

    From Recursivity (http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/11/fruitlessness-of-id-research.html)

  24. tildeb says:

    If one states that: “It could not have evolved,” then one must explain on what basis that conclusion is reached. That is called evidence for the conclusion. If the basis is on evidence other than opinion, it is the job of the Cornelius Hunter’s of the ID ‘movement’ to provide it to the correct peer group. If the evidence withstands this peer group’s scrutiny, which will explain why the evidence could be interpreted to NOT support the conclusion, then it becomes valid evidence for the conclusion reached. If the evidence can be dismantled and fails to withstand peer scrutiny, then it is still Dr Cornelius Hunter’s job to come up with valid evidence. This he has failed to do, and he has a very long track record of doing the same thing and expecting a different results. We have a name for people who think along similar lines.

    The problem with ID is that it has not one shred of valid evidence to reveal a designer. That is not a problem for anyone anywhere except those who support the conclusion that they really is a designer. Based on this fact, most reasonable people say we don’t know if there is or isn’t. Religious people are not dissuaded from stating that they do know, that there is a designer, but (so far) have come up with no evidence to support that conclusion. That’s a problem.

    Railing against the ignorance of others and standing firm with inadequate evidence like Dembinski and Behe and Hunter and others who depend on accepting the right conclusion first (there is a designer) for their paychecks and who can then dedicate their research towards finding anything they can to support their concluded assumption is not going to alter the inadequacies of the conclusion that there is a designer: in spite of their best efforts, there still remains no valid evidence for a designer.

    Because the appearance of design does not provide evidence for a designer (think of a school of fish where the school seems to be designed but can be explained by common individual behaviour), the entire approach used by Hunter et al has been undermined. Again, to be clear, evidence of design does not translate into evidence for a designer. This approach is invalid. It’s rotten science. It is discredited science. It’s results are scientifically meaningless in support of the conclusion. Why Hunter et al cannot do anything else but spend time finding evidence for the appearance of design shows the paucity of their position.

    I do not know why those who believe in a designer cannot grasp this fatal flaw in their reasoning… no matter what level of education they may have attained. Reams of ‘evidence’ that point out what appears to be design will not alter the simple (and it really is a very simple) point that this appearance is not evidence for a designer. Why this central and fatal flaw to so many ID arguments continues to elude those who wish it were not so remains a great mystery. To use the same flawed reasoning, one could then argue that this blindness to a common thinking error is evidence that religious belief itself physically impairs the brain from reasonable functioning.

  25. Patricia says:

    Interesting post. I thought to let you know that you wewbsite isn’t getting displayed properly on opera mini web browser on my mobile phone.

    Have a nice time…sorry for typos

  26. Previously Defend the Word: ” I have previously mentioned that we have high percentage same with mouse but we don’t claim that we are related to them.”

    HARRY: [“yes evolutionists do claim we are related to mice, and yes evolution would expect our dna to be veery similair to that of a mouse.”]

    Defend the Word: First I doubt your understanding of evolution is as detailed as you claim, I base this on the above comment you just made. If you can do that then anything can be justified by you simply because you say it to be so. That is not what I said, or Dr Hunter. What we are saying is that similarity in DNA is not evidence and your jump to that conclusion demonstrates your faith in a process that is not fully demonstrated. In fact often similarity in DNA can be attributed to the common one and the same designer. Therefore this evidence can be used much more to support ID then Evolution which excludes possibility of Gods intervention.

    Dr Hunter: ”Therefore Evolutionist feels it is correct to come to this unreasonable and contrary conclusion even though there is no evidence to support what they are saying. I.e. God could not have done it therefore even though evidence points us to design we will say it evolved because other option is eliminated due to lack of probability that Creation story is true.”

    HARRY: [“So you and hunter are suggesting the following: We found a new type of gene in a bacteria the gene allows it to digest nylon there are similair genes in other bacteria species that we can see have mutated into the correct gene. However that is not enough evidence to say it evolved. Evolutionists believe this despite the fact that there is ‘NO EVIDENCE’ So therefore it was designed.”]

    Defend the Word: I know what you are trying to do here, but again you give misinterpretation. Your inference is missing the main point, which is that complexity is not explained by the process of evolution. Moving upwards is a process that is different from simple mutation of the bacteria. Adoptability is significantly different to progressive increase of additional organs or organs that change function like moving land based mammal to enter water, as there are many parts that would have to evolve simultaneously. That in my humble opinion destroys the idea of unguided evolution. In which case you would have to change its name to guided Intelligent Design Evolution Process. Therefore you are creating Highbred, which is not in accordance with the sayings of the evolution process.

    Previously Defend the Word: ”It is your prerogative to choose to ignore such complexity and say this is not evidence however I find that so unscientific on your part”

    HARRY: [“Defend you’ve said it. I hope you didn’t actually believe this, but you clearly do, and therefore i doubt there is any chance of you changing your mind. You have just stated it is unscientific to say complexity is not evidence.
    In science, the end product of an experiment or an event is called a result. Complexity is a result. You can not infer the method from the result. Saying complexity is evidence is infering a method from a result. Ie biological systems are complex (result) therefore that is evidence for an intelligent design (method).
    I am going to give you a result… There is a positive correlation between temperature and diffusion. That is not evidence for anything, you can not deduce a method, theory or law from that statement. The only piece of evidence ID claims to have is complexity, and that is not even evidence.”]

    Defend the Word: You yet again come to conclusion that is simply not what the author or myself are trying to say. Nobody is suggesting that we should look at the complexity in nature and say it was created. What we are saying is that when analysing complexity and when every other option is exhausted then we are free to conclude that higher intelligence was involved.
    There is nothing wrong is saying when you find the blueprint of the design that this is how designer designed life. And if you don’t find blueprint then reverse engineering is just as good. As long as we can show that this could not simultaneously evolve from simple to complex.

    This may sound like faith to you, but don’t forget that it is based on the observed data, in the same way that theory of evolution is structured upon. It is completely false pretension to say we have better methodology and therefore we are right. Your methodology is constructed in order to eliminate possibility of logical errors in its processing.

    But when philosophically driven research purports that they have methodology that is correct at the expense of all other methods, you have to wonder about the wisdom of such claim. In fact opposite is true, lack of insight into understanding modern science is demonstrated when such claim is made. We don’t have evidence for believing in electrinos and their mass yet everything we observe suggest that this is in fact the case. So if in modern physics we are happy to accept data which we observe indirectly why oh why do you claim to be scientific in your process and then look down on me. When I use same principle, this is simply dabble standard and omission of facts that are always there, but never acknowledged.

    I would dearly love you to look closely at what you are saying and what you are rejecting, both of these if scrutinised closely should make you realise how much of your faith is used to take you to the position that you hold. I am sorry that you reject this, but nothing what you said is persuading me to think of your neutrality or objectivity in the way I think they should stand before I feel relaxed about what you say. I think issue at question is intellectual pride that is overlooked and one mans complex methodology however beautiful it may seam to him/her is simply having a complex methodology that still needs and should be questioned. May I be simplistic with the example I think would be useful to demonstrate that complexity is not always best. People that love Apple Laptops and software would laugh at PC and Microsoft and say that complexity often leads to myriad of errors that can be avoided by simply going down to the main point of the programming. We are often too quickly impressed with the complexity without realising potential and advantage of simple straight reasoning. I hope this makes sense to you and most of all I hope that you do find yourself challenged to think beyond the boundaries that are so rigidly imposed onto you by those who call themselves “brights”. Don’t just lay down and accept all that is thrown at you. Please question all aspects and don’t simply hide behind your faith in science. That is what we call scientism, and interestingly enough that is precisely what the philosophy of science is fighting against.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  27. Can I just point out to two things we need to consider here.

    1.) Scientist like any other person has pride and in particular intellectual pride, this is most precious to them, for many of them, we can observe they don’t have musical careers or successful sporting or business vocation, Their primary talent falls in the adoration of their intellectual ability to process data and then find meaningful explanation to the processes that they observe. Would they risk therefore loosing something so precious to them by defending something that is universally rejected even if they may think that there are many valid points outlined in the “controversial paper”.
    2.) Like any other person, when you have well established dogma, you will have problems with shifting such attitude we call that Paradigm Shift and you are probably well acquainted with that idea. Faith is something that is frequently missed and I find that frightening as all presuppositions we start from are faith based. Even though our lack of faith in gravity is not making us float in the air our attitude and most importantly faith into the observed data will make big difference to how we interpret any given data. Whilst this may sound too philosophical basic principle is that where you place your trust there all your conclusions will derive from.

    So if I may be open with you here, I think this is more what I would expect of people like Sam Harris where lack of logic is constantly displayed when only one side or implication is considered without taking into account entire argument. So I don’t have dispute with your data and the results that you give me but I do question if we should use that information to come to the conclusions that you may want to suggest.

    Thanks for your effort and continued readiness to engage into debate.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  28. [“If one states that: “It could not have evolved,” then one must explain on what basis that conclusion is reached. That is called evidence for the conclusion. If the basis is on evidence other than opinion, it is the job of the Cornelius Hunter’s of the ID ‘movement’ to provide it to the correct peer group. If the evidence withstands this peer group’s scrutiny, which will explain why the evidence could be interpreted to NOT support the conclusion, then it becomes valid evidence for the conclusion reached. If the evidence can be dismantled and fails to withstand peer scrutiny, then it is still Dr Cornelius Hunter’s job to come up with valid evidence. This he has failed to do, and he has a very long track record of doing the same thing and expecting a different results. We have a name for people who think along similar lines.”]

    Defend the Word: Problem with this statement is that we look at the world as two dimensional problem. We ignore many problems that simply don’t agree with our presuppositions. Books have been published, they are not hidden so that they can not be examined. Fact is that they are examined and some papers are then published disagreeing with the original conclusions. This however is not the problem for either side, first we need to revisit scientific claims made by Proponents of Evolution and then we build on the data and look at the alternative explanation and hypothesis. It is simply not true to claim that ID people do not have written records of their hypothesis to say that is to simply ignore multitude of books that are in existence all over the world. Not written by lay people like me but PhD Qualified man and woman who have problems with what is being thought in our schools as scientific fact. It is unfortunate that Evolutionists come again and again with same mantra “there is no evidence” when in fact plentiful data is presented. You could just imagine the outrage if ID proponents suggested that no data was presented for the theory of evolution. Again I think this says more about their lack of listening skills and far less about their understanding of the subject raised. They are often blinkered by the established dogma and perversion of science that they like to masquerade and sell to others as authentic scientific data, they then snigger at ID people and ridicule then of doing precisely that which they so frequently peddle to those who simply don’t bother to question.

    [“The problem with ID is that it has not one shred of valid evidence to reveal a designer. That is not a problem for anyone anywhere except those who support the conclusion that they really is a designer. Based on this fact, most reasonable people say we don’t know if there is or isn’t. Religious people are not dissuaded from stating that they do know, that there is a designer, but (so far) have come up with no evidence to support that conclusion. That’s a problem.”]

    Defend the Word: I see you argument, and it would be valid if that was indeed correct. However, religious people face such ferocity and ridicule from many modern atheists that one would be blind to the truth if he assumed that questions are not constantly raised by ID religious people. Lastly not all religious people are ID and not all ID supporters are religious. Fact that should not be forgotten and ignored.

    [“Railing against the ignorance of others and standing firm with inadequate evidence like Dembinski and Behe and Hunter and others who depend on accepting the right conclusion first (there is a designer) for their paychecks and who can then dedicate their research towards finding anything they can to support their concluded assumption is not going to alter the inadequacies of the conclusion that there is a designer: in spite of their best efforts, there still remains no valid evidence for a designer.”]

    Defend the Word: Here are few issues I have with your argument, neither Dr Behe, nor Dr Dembski nor Dr Hunter depend on the pay cheques of religious public for their livelihood, and on the contrary, many atheists are jumping on the Dr Dawkins bandwagon by substituting their pension plans with some extra risk free publishing investments that is aggressively anti religion. What is interesting is that many people that buy their books are using them to decorate their bookcase and only hardened atheists are choosing to delve deeper into the contexts of their books. What is frightening is how little people value alternative approach and how dismissive they become when blinded with intellectual pride.

    [“Because the appearance of design does not provide evidence for a designer (think of a school of fish where the school seems to be designed but can be explained by common individual behaviour), the entire approach used by Hunter et al has been undermined. Again, to be clear, evidence of design does not translate into evidence for a designer. This approach is invalid. It’s rotten science. It is discredited science. It’s results are scientifically meaningless in support of the conclusion. Why Hunter et al cannot do anything else but spend time finding evidence for the appearance of design shows the paucity of their position.”]

    Defend the Word: I fail to find sound reasoning in your argument in the above paragraph as much as you fail to see their argumentation on multitude of data that simply could not be explained by process of evolution. These are assumed rather then demonstrated presumptions of people that hide behind their credentials. Note that they are challenged by ID proponents not vice versa, I don’t see ID proponents hiding behind myriad of data that is often disconnected, and which links only exist in the minds of those who are already predisposed to thinking in one particular way.

    [“I do not know why those who believe in a designer cannot grasp this fatal flaw in their reasoning… no matter what level of education they may have attained. Reams of ‘evidence’ that point out what appears to be design will not alter the simple (and it really is a very simple) point that this appearance is not evidence for a designer. Why this central and fatal flaw to so many ID arguments continues to elude those who wish it were not so remains a great mystery. To use the same flawed reasoning, one could then argue that this blindness to a common thinking error is evidence that religious belief itself physically impairs the brain from reasonable functioning.”]

    Defend the Word: As Dr Dembski put it in the same way SETI alien search program are looking for any data that would point out that some intelligence must have sent a form of a signal to us, in other words we don’t find this phenomenon in our ordinarily empty and apparently silent universe that appears to be sterile, in the same way when design could not be explained by the process of evolution then this strongly points to guess what, intelligence that is showing us that we are not alone. Again like you I find it incredible that people who claim that they are open to the workings of science would ignore this and dismiss it despite the fact that many parallel examples are used by proponents of atheistic world view. Just think about the string theory and their implication, think why do we need it, and why is it that despite the fact that we could never prove such phenomenon many are keen to see it integrated into our scientific books. Answer is simple, we can use it regardless how unlikely this may be if it helps us to remove the need for Gods intervention and existence.
    Again I think more intellectual honesty and less dismissive attitude would be helpful when engaging this subject and that goes for both sides of the divide.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  29. Dr Hunter: ”The only figure in Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, showed how he envisioned species branching off of one another. As Fig. 9 shows, over time new species are supposed to arise creating a branching pattern. Species that are quite different, such as elephants and worms, are placed on distant parts of the evolutionary tree. Their common ancestor is supposed to date far back in time (see Section 4.3). On the other hand, allied species, such as slugs and snails, are placed on neighboring twigs of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists think that their common ancestor is relatively recent.”

    HARRY: CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF DARWINS IDEAS, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PHENOTYPES ANYWAY.

    Dr Hunter: Because similar species are thought to share a relatively recent common ancestor, they are assumed to have not had much time to evolve differences between them. That explains why they are similar, and it also predicts that such species do not have significant differences. Their genome differences should be minor. This is because evolution is limited by the rate at which genetic variations can appear and subsequently spread throughout the respective lineages. For instance, consider two species which are supposed to share a common ancestor dating back only a few millions of years, such as the human and chimp. Evolution expected that such cousin species would have quite similar genes. There would be no new genes evolved in such a brief time period. Indeed, for decades evolutionists have cited minor genetic differences between such allied species as powerful evidence for evolution

    HARRY: OK….

    Dr Hunter: ”In order for new genes to arise, a much longer time would be required. Such new genes were predicted to arise via the duplication of an existing gene. [6,7] If such duplications produced a non-functional gene then the gene could begin to mutate. The mutations would not cause problems if the gene was already non-functional. The mutations could accumulate, and perhaps luckily produce a new functional gene at a much later time. Of course none of this explains how genes arose in the first place, but that is a different problem (see Section 2.1).”
    ”In order for new genes to arise, a much longer time would be required. ”

    HARRY: WHY? ANOTHER ASSERTION/OPINION MADE WITH NO BACKING EVIDENCE. IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN THAT NEW GENETIC INFORMATION CAN ARISE QUITE QUICKLY IN STUDIES INVOLVING BACTERIA. (DONT BOTHER SAYING CHANGES IN BACTERIA IS NOT EVOLUTION, REMEMBER I AM DISCUSSING ID EVIDENCE).

    Defend the Word: I’m sure we had this query before, is this resubmission of the same reply? You are dismissing refutation of Evolution by pointing to need for evidence for ID. That is kind of like me saying you don’t know that I am a human because you can’t prove that my pet is a hamster.

    Dr Hunter: ‘Of course none of this explains how genes arose in the first place, but that is a different problem’

    HARRY: YES IT IS, AND ONE QUITE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

    Defend the Word: It is linked to the point of design which is what you try to avoid by any means possible.

    Dr Hunter: ”There certainly are many genetic similarities between allied species, but we now know of dramatic differences and the list is growing. This prediction has been falsified as many unexpected genetic differences have since been discovered amongst a wide range of allied species. Even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins”

    HARRY: GASP!! THE FIRST ASSERTION ON THIS WEBSTIE WHICH IS BACKED WITH EVIDENCE!! CONSIDERING THAT UNIQUE GENES HAVE ARISEN IN BACTERIAL EXPERIMENTS ONLY 10 YEARS OLD I CAN SEE MILLIONS OF YEARS BEING QUITE CAPABLE OF GIVING HUNDREDS. THAT SAID I DONT KNOW HOW OLD THE GENUS Escherichia IS.

    Defend the Word: Just a reminder that you should refer to footnotes at this article you will find many supporting evidence there.

    Dr Hunter: Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes.

    HARRY: NOW THIS IS SILLY AGAIN. THE AUTHOR GIVES AN EXAMPLE, BUT HIS CONCLUSION IS DISCONNECTED FROM IT.

    Defend the Word: No it is not, which is it, slow process or quick change one is induced trough genetic experimentation the other is natural supposedly. However Evolution is yet to be confirmed as process that is consistent with observed data. Pretension that manipulation is equal to natural process may be easy to sell to those who subscribe to that theory but it is different issue with those who dare to question.

    Dr Hunter: ”These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years”

    HARRY: WHY WOULD THEY HAVE HAD TO? HE GIVES NO REASON WHY IT TAKES NOVEL GENES MILLIONS OF YEARS TO EVOLVE.

    Defend the Word; That is what the process of evolution demands, check your books on the subject.

    Dr Hunter: ”a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes.”

    HARRRY: THERE MAY BE LARGE DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENT BREEDS OF THE FRUIT FLY. HOWEVER THE GREATNESS/SMALLNESS PF THE SIMILAIRTY IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS RELY UPON. IT IS THE FACT THAT THE FRUIT FLY GENOTYPES ARE MORE SIMILAIR TO EACH OTHER THAN ANY OTHER SPECIES. UNLESS SOMEONE FINDS A FRUIT FLY WITH A GENOTYPE MORE SIMILAIR TO A MOOSE THAN ANOTHER FRUIT FLY, THEN THIS ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT. THE SPEED OF WHICH THE GENOTYPES CHANGE IS NOT IMPORTANT TO EVOLUTION, ONLY THAT THEY ARE SIMILAIR. IF THEY HAVE DIVERGED A LONG TIME SO BE IT.

    Defend the word: I am frightened how you could make such claims and say you support Evolution. You continue to assert things that are simply not in accordance with the theory. Time is of great importance otherwise we come full circle to the issue of design.

    Dr Hunter: ”Such findings are not limited to bacteria and insects, and substantial genetic differences, in otherwise allied species, are now undeniable. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that new genes can be manufactured in response to environmental pressures. For instance, in the 1970s bacteria were found that could metabolize nylon, even though nylon synthesis had begun only a few decades earlier. Bacteria had been exposed to nylon via the waste water from factories, and now the bacteria could live off the new chemical. The bacteria had modified an existing enzyme (mainly via a frameshift) to create a new enzyme that degrades nylon oligomers. The slow, unguided mechanism envisioned by evolutionists could not have reacted so quickly. And furthermore the mechanism is repeatable as the enzyme has been found more than once. As one evolutionist admitted, “The swiftness with which these two enzymes have evolved is truly remarkable, for several decades are but a flash in the evolutionary time scale”

    HARRY: GOOD GRIEF.

    Dr Hunter: ”Such findings are not limited to bacteria and insects, and substantial genetic differences, in otherwise allied species, are now undeniable.”

    HARRY: AFTER SAYING THIS, HE GOES ON TO MENTION ANOTHER BACTERIA SPECIES.

    Defend the Word: And what it the point you are trying to make here? Is he not allowed to use Evolution argument and show inconsistency?

    Dr Hunter: ‘Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that new genes can be manufactured in response to environmental pressures.”

    HARRY: WELL THAT KIND OF IS WHAT EVOLUTION STATES SHOULD HAPPEN. EXCEPT THAT IT ISN’T MANUFACTURED IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE, IT IS JUST SELECTED BY IT.

    Defend the Word: No that is adoptability not evolution, we see change and variation that often reverts to original form.

    Dr Hunter: ”The slow, unguided mechanism envisioned by evolutionists could not have reacted so quickly.”

    HARRY: WHY COULD IT NOT HAVE REACTED SO QUICKLY? ASSERTION AGAIN WITH NO EVIDENCE. THIS SENTENCE ALSO DISPLAYS A GORSS MISUNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION. TO MENTION AN ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE AND THEN CALL EVOLUTION UNGUIDED IS JUST IGNORANCE OF THE TOPIC. ITS ALMOST AS IF THE AUTHOR THINKS EVOLUTION IS RANDOM.
    NO EVOLUTIONIST ENVISIONS EVOLUTION AS UNGUIDED IN THAT SENSE OF THE WORD.

    Defend the Word: Please elaborate, you fight information with assertion that need to be verified. Dr Hunter gives footnotes and your comment on ignorance is un cool. For someone who holds PhD in Biology he is far to modest and tolerates far too many people with delusion of grandeur and pretension. How ridiculous to be accused of something that is so far from the factual truth.

    Dr Hunter: And furthermore the mechanism is repeatable as the enzyme has been found more than once. As one evolutionist admitted, “The swiftness with which these two enzymes have evolved is truly remarkable, for several decades are but a flash in the evolutionary time scale”

    HARRY: ALL HE DOES HERE IS POINT TO AN UNNAMED EVOLUTIONIST SURPRISED BY THE DISCOVERY…

    Defend the Word: And what is your point, is he not allowed to do that?

    Dr Hunter ”More recent genome data also suggest other sophisticated mechanisms of gene creation. For instance, it appears that new genes may arise from shuffling both the modules that comprise genes (called exons) and the nearby regulatory sequences. Such chimeric structures can immediately confer novel functions. [6] This is one of several potential sophisticated mechanisms that can rapidly create new genes. For instance, another mechanism is retroposition which is the insertion of an edited gene back into the DNA. By inserting the gene next to a different regulatory sequence, the gene can immediately be expressed at different times or conditions”

    HARRY: I DONT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THAT BUT ITS NOT EXACTLY EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY EVIDENCE FOR ID

    Defend the Word
    : If you don’t understand it are you not wrong to make such assertion?

    Dr Hunter: ”In one interesting example that involved retroposition, a monkey protein that protects against retroviruses appears to have exons from two other proteins. And like the nylon metabolizing enzyme, the process apparently was repeated. This unlikely protein has been found in species in Asia and in South America. [10] There is much yet to learn, but the evolutionary predictions have not fared well. Many novel genes have been found in otherwise allied species, and several sophisticated, fast-acting, mechanisms have been identified”

    HARRY: NO NO NO, THIS IS TOTALLY BOGUS. FIRST LETS CONCLUDE THAT THIS SECTION OF THE AUTHORS ESSAY ALSO HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR ID (I DONT EVEN THINK ITS MEANT TO). EVOLUTION PREDICTS MUTATION IN THE GENES, AND HE SAYS BECAUSE WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT HAPPENING, IT MEANS EVOLUTIONS PREDICTIONS ARE WRONG. HE IS BASICALLY SAYING YES YOU HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION, BUTS ITS HAPPENED TO FAST SO IT CANT BE RIGHT. ALL THE WHILE GIVING NO REASON EVOLUTION CANT HAPPEN QUICKLY.
    PLUS, EARLIER IN THE ESSAY HE STATES:

    Dr Hunter: ”These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes”

    HARRY: HE TALKS ABOUT NOVEL GENES NOT HAVING THE TIME TO EVOLVE, BUT BOTH IN THE CHIMPANZEE AND IN THE ECOLI THE GENES HAVE NOT EVOLVED FROM SCRATCH THEY ARE MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING GENES.
    ANOTHER ARTICLE DEFEND THE WORD THAT GIVES NO EVIDENCE FOR ID. THIS ONE DOESNT EVEN GIVE ME ANYTHING TO THINK ABOUT ID.

    Defend the Word: Yes you are right, he does not deal with ID here he is simply pointing our to many inconsistencies and gaping holes in the understanding of the process we love to call evolution. Fact that we have complexity and this could not be explained with the process of evolution is strong argument to show that some intelligent being was involved in tinkering with the blueprint of life on this planet we call home.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  30. harry says:

    I am finished here. You call me ignorant of evolution because I stated we are related to mice. According to evolution you are related to the grass in your garden!

    (millions of years for ‘novel genes’) That is what the process of evolution demands, check your books on the subject.

    No it doesn’t

    You are ignorant of the principle of common ancestory and modern evolution.

    Learn to walk before you can run.
    goodbye

  31. Hi Harry

    Sorry you got offended, but I can see that you give as good as you get, like you I am disappointed that you profess great knowledge yet you misrepresent the facts, even when talking evolution. ( I apologise for your hurt but I do not apologise for saying things that needed to be said in order to clarify the subject) I understand common ancestry and how all life shares same origins. Despite what you think I consider myself very well informed about the subject. I think it is important to differentiate between supposed relation between origins of life, which you freely admit you don’t have a clue (I say this in nicest possible way) about and are not willing to talk about that part of the subject. And secondly when you talk about mice you will assure others that this is billions of years ago, how do you get that data I don’t know. You either have access to time travel or simply take some scientist word for it. But more interestingly tree of life is far advanced today so even for the evolutionists to say that we are related to the mice. We are talking about genetic similarities and stretching it that far is simply not honest to the question we were debating. I could then say yes we are all star dust and are related to stars, factually this would be correct, if you believe theory of evolution but it needs to be curtailed when looking at the specifics of DNA similarities and linking one species with the next. Believe me when I say this, when people say things like that they simply need very broad measure in order to cover every eventuality in order to remove any arguments against possibility of designer. And that in my humble opinion is dishonest, and deliberately avoiding specific issue that Dr Hunter was raising.

    I am not asking you to come back, I am not 5 years old, and that kind of argumentation works only with children. I have two of them at home and I spend much of my time with them. This is why I will reserve my time on this blog for those who are serious about having adult conversation. I have been told many times by you that I don’t know my stuff and that I should go back to school, however I did not get offended. Once you said that I should be straight with you. And I took you for your word and tried to point out that your self confidence is misplaced and did not want you to think that simply because you could recall answers given to you that you should think that you truly understand the subject and therefore pressurise others to conform to your way of thinking.

    After all note that during our e-mail exchanges I have learned more about you, and believe me nothing new about the theory of evolution. I have made it my job to understand this subject. And have left this forum going simply to show that much pretension is often used by people that look down on people that don’t agree with them. Often citing incorrect and false data, which is either exaggerated or misrepresented. I only hope that you check your motives and re examine this subject. I hate for this exchange to be seen as a contest between who is right and who is wrong. I have never intended for this blog to show how right and smart I am. My main objective is to challenge people to think for themselves and not simply accept many outright lies, speculations and distortions.

    Whilst I appreciate that you may be hurt with what was said, note that you have not been innocent either. This I don’t think justifies anyone to bully anybody else, but as I said before, you give me permission to be open with you.

    Regards

    Defend the word

  32. harry says:

    Like I have said many times before. Being offended over the internet is pointless.

    It is just clear to me you are to entrenched in your views.

    Goodbye

  33. Hi Harry

    You yet again miss the point, it is not about being set in my ways. It is about sharing why I have massive reservation about the process of evolution as it stands. What is however obvious is that the only reason we engaged in our conversation was to exchange ideas. I never said you have to agree with me, secondly let’s not forget that simply reciting the party line is not an answer. I am interested in going beyond simple answered. In the same way I am told you can’t simple say God did it, I reserve right to say neither can you say, Charlie Darwin said it. I want to see the information that he is basing his “religious view” and I want to be able to understand all relevant data that could take this argument either way. I have been following many Atheists web blogs and that includes many writings of Richard Dawkins. So I consider it right to comment on many inconsistencies, wishful thinking, bullying, and out right lying.

    As I said before, I did the civilised thing and apologised for hurting your feelings, but at the end of the day my objective was to challenge you. In the same way you did your best to make me conform to your pattern of thinking.

    I wish you all the best in whatever you do.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  34. I wish I had found your site sooner. Just adding you to my feed reader now.

Comments are closed.