What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

I already answered this in Message 101, which you appear to have skipped over. What I said was:But what would be the criteria you apply for a divinely create thing? How do you distinguish between a complex molecule that came about naturally versus one that was designed? ID has no answer for these simple and obvious questions. Something that was an actual theory would have undergone rigorous testing and replication showing precisely how one goes about deterministically determining design, but ID has never done this. That's why it's not science.The ideas of people like William Dembski, Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner define no criteria for identifying design. The best they can do is produce terms like "specified complexity," but they provide no criteria by which to identify it, leaving their ID followers with nothing of substance, just pathetic repetitions of, "If it looks designed, it was." I suggest you either respond seriously and sincerely to the responses you're receiving, or do what you've said you were going to do several times already and stop posting.--Percy

You call saying "Shame on you" respect? Shame on you for your intellectual dishonesty Rahvin.I am not attacking speciazation and you know it.And my examples have everything to do with ID.You asked for examples of ID. Those are just a couple.Did not an intelligent being design them?Put up or shut up. Show me you examples of a mutation making something for itself - but wait...if it made something for itself, wouldn't that be ID? Man, I don't know what example I could even ask for from you... NOW I'm back on topic eh?

I was calling you out for your dishonesty by attacking a principle you know nothing about. That is shameful, TheDarin. I wouldn't make claims about the Bible unless I had read a passage that supported my claim, yet you are here insisting that DNA is designed when you don't even know the opposition's position.Apparently this is a schoolyard, and "nuh uh!" is good enough for you. You're attacking evolution in general. Until you can show the mechanism by which evolution still exists, yet humans did not evolve from an apelike ancestor (despite the fact that the same evidence that shows us other species evolved is present in humans), you're attacking the entire theory, despite what you're saying. As Percy asked - how do you define design? You know the napkin and watch were designed because we can to to the napkin factory or to a watchmaker and see the designer. How does one determine design in the natural world? What definition are you using that allows a cat to have evolved, but makes human beings designed?Your examples have nothing to do with determining design in a living thing. ...what? Now you aren't even making sense.Respond without the mockery, and perhaps we can have a conversation. When you post things like this, however, nobody can understand what you're trying to say.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Rahvin: "Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, excepting that nearly all atheists accept evolution."Obviously, Rahvin is too confused or deluded to see that the above sentence is blatantly contradictory.Nearly all Atheists are evolutionists for one reason: objectivity and logic dictate that this reason is because it supports their worldview. Why else would they support evolution? Atheists do not support evolution because it supports Theism, they do so because they know that if it is true it refutes the existence of the Genesis Creator (God).Why would Christians support the same origins theory that all Atheists support?Obviously one party is not genuinely as such and that party is not the Atheists.This means Christian evolutionists are ignorant, deluded or deceived. There are no other possibilities. I would advance the idea that since all Atheists accept evolution, and the fact that most evolutionists consider themselves Christians, these facts support the existence of Satan to explain the enigma.How else would you explain Atheists and Christians accepting the same ORIGINS theory?Since Judas thought he was a real Christian and since he betrayed Christ to His face with a kiss - looks like Biblical typology explains and corresponds to reality. "Christians" are still betraying Christ to His face.Ray

TheDarin, you're living proof of the premise of this topic. First, you're unable to understand how the evidence supports evolution, primarily because you're working so hard at not understanding what evolutionary theory actually says.Second, you're drawing conclusions for which you're unable to muster any evidence at all.Third, though much information has been presented to you in the last few hours, you've managed to fail to respond to almost any of it.--Percy

Is this the chart you are talking about?If so, the answer is simple. This is one of the lies that Biblical Christians create to con you. That is NOT a scientific chart at all, but rather the typical cartoon that Creationists palm off as though it were real.If you get in a high school that uses charts like that, run away. Get out. Go to a different school.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Because they are honest maybe?Because that is the only possible conclusion based on the evidence?Because "To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There are two objects on the table. You have been trained to see them and say "dos" (that's spanish for 2) and I have been trained to see that count as "two."We argue and argue over what they should be called...you say dos, I say two...back and fourth...back and fourth.So I suggest this...Let's take the words away...Let's both look at what is on the table.Now...there is no disagreement. We see the same thing.

All squirrels are mammals.Not all mammals are squirrels.You're the deluded one, Ray. Congratulations on slandering the majority of your faith. Oh, I don't know. Maybe becuase it's highly accurate?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Evolution has little to do with linguistics, TheDarin, except that certain words have definitions in science that are different from common usage. Of course we see the same thing. The problem is that you haven't actually looked through all of the items on the table, and don't know what 90% of them are. You've been told since childhood that all of the things on the table were designed, but you never actually looked at them yourself or asked how one determines design in the first place.Any conclusions you may draw from such ignorance are invalid.If you'd actually like to discuss evolution and learn what the theory actually states, please stick around and participate in the debates. If all you want to do is say "nuh uh" and threaten to run away when people don't agree with you, then by all means, leave.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I do not need to learn more about your sect atheism any more than I need to learn about leprechauns.And I simply don't have time or the desire to spend my life learning about evolution. that's your passion it is not mine, and I should not be ridiculed because if I choose not to study it in-depth.I stand in here not to poke holes in evolution. I do not have the information to do that. What I was in here to do, and I have never pretended to be here for anything other than exploring your position.I've accomplished that. Mission accomplished.FYI - the most important take-away from this was how the EVO got those single path ape to man images to appear all over "high schools" and zoo murals. I wonder what the intention of the EVO was there...of course it was not to meddle with the Christian worldview...and now the EVO folks in here are saying that is not even a fair representation of the ape to man argument...but at least we planted the doubt in the heads of high schooler and those kids that see the images on the zoo walls....(I keep saying goodbye...but it so hard for me to leave...I'm trying...I'm trying very hard).

The only museums where you see that diagram is in the phony sideshows called "Creation Museums."

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

jar....those charts ARE THE most common image the EVOs have planted...you need to get out more.... or read more books...or visit zoos. Call your marketing folks...I'm not making this stuff up.

I haven't mentioned my atheism to you once. Cold Foreign Object was the one who brought that up, not me, and my reply on the matter was to him. And I don't expect anyone to study evolution very far at all - except when they say that evolution is false. I will criticize anyone who claims to be able to disprove something they don't even understand. That's intellectual dishonesty and argument from ignorance. It's like a kindergartener telling a physicist the Theory of Gravity is wrong. No, you haven't. You still don't even have the barest conception of what the Theory of Evolution states. You don't even have a grasp of the scientific method. Of course it's a fair representation. It's just also simplified - it's a visual aid to help people grasp a concept. A child will not understand real genetics, or real morphology. Diagrams like the one you speak of are what we use to introduce people to the concept. You "See Spot Run" book from when you learned to read wasn't the height of literature - it was just your introduction to the written word.As for your insinuations about some anti-Christian agenda, it's simply not true. Those posters are put up becasue they are a simplified but accurate visual aid representing the model of the natural process of evolution. The key word there is "accurate." It's really easy. Just stop posting, and you'll have left.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You do know that ID in this context does not refer simply to man made objects? It refers to divine creation. Or at least cdesign proponentist.If it did it would be in no way linked to evolution in nature.