Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Trickster God

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:54:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I may be wrong but, don't we find more simplistic organisms as we "go back in time"?

Does that mean that God made simpler ones first, then created ones that were similar but more advanced after, and on and on?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:04:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Common decent is not entirely dependent on similarities between organisms lol I don't even buy the similarities argument, because it is true that similarities could just mean that a designer made them the same way and out of the same stuff. The timing a huge factor for example with regards to evolution. This is how we know evolution occurs, and it wasn't just all the types of animals beginning existing in one shot. If creationism is true, then humans existed as long as the oldest organism. There would be so much evidence if this was true, but the fossil record clearly shows organisms getting more complex overtime. Speciation is observed in labs, where organisms become more complex and develop new features, to the point where new species actually begin to exist (new number of chormosomes and everything). Evolution even predicted that if we shared a common ancestor with the apes, then we should find two fused ape chromosomes within humans, and if evolution was false, we should not find this (this could have falsified common decent). Chromosome #2 shows two chromosomes that fused together a long time ago. This scientifically confirms common decent.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:06:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.:

It thought this was well thought out. It is a entirely valid point and considered reasonable.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:14:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:04:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Common decent is not entirely dependent on similarities between organisms lol I don't even buy the similarities argument, because it is true that similarities could just mean that a designer made them the same way and out of the same stuff. The timing a huge factor for example with regards to evolution. This is how we know evolution occurs, and it wasn't just all the types of animals beginning existing in one shot. If creationism is true, then humans existed as long as the oldest organism. There would be so much evidence if this was true, but the fossil record clearly shows organisms getting more complex overtime. Speciation is observed in labs, where organisms become more complex and develop new features, to the point where new species actually begin to exist (new number of chormosomes and everything). Evolution even predicted that if we shared a common ancestor with the apes, then we should find two fused ape chromosomes within humans, and if evolution was false, we should not find this (this could have falsified common decent). Chromosome #2 shows two chromosomes that fused together a long time ago. This scientifically confirms common decent.:

LOL, more abnormalities for harm happen then they help. Tell me how it fused together? Like you said same material and some more complex than others but of course the current surviving species seems more complex. That is because we survived and weak ones has died or be exterminated. Even a dinosaur would be no much intellilectually to humans. Humans could group and hunt and kill large game like that. You must add totally new material to a thing for it to change into a different structured thing. Things of the same kind cant not change into a different structured kind without outside of the kind.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:20:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, creationist can always some from the point of, that God created everything fully grown, fully functional, and that our evidence is not valid. This is not tricking, for God wants you to look to Him not the creation. Even so, It is very valid philosophically that he would do this.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:14:31 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:04:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Common decent is not entirely dependent on similarities between organisms lol I don't even buy the similarities argument, because it is true that similarities could just mean that a designer made them the same way and out of the same stuff. The timing a huge factor for example with regards to evolution. This is how we know evolution occurs, and it wasn't just all the types of animals beginning existing in one shot. If creationism is true, then humans existed as long as the oldest organism. There would be so much evidence if this was true, but the fossil record clearly shows organisms getting more complex overtime. Speciation is observed in labs, where organisms become more complex and develop new features, to the point where new species actually begin to exist (new number of chormosomes and everything). Evolution even predicted that if we shared a common ancestor with the apes, then we should find two fused ape chromosomes within humans, and if evolution was false, we should not find this (this could have falsified common decent). Chromosome #2 shows two chromosomes that fused together a long time ago. This scientifically confirms common decent.:

LOL, more abnormalities for harm happen then they help.

This is false, viruses are always helping themselves by evolving traits which help them become resistant to vaccines. Most evolutionary traits are for help, some aren't but there are many factors that go into that. For one, an organism might made rapid changes in environments, and develop a trait that doesn't help in his new environments. Pointing out evolutionary changes that do not necessarily help, in no way discredit evolution in the slightest, that's silly.

Tell me how it fused together?

By recombination, which is a process that lets strands of DNA exchange in areas where there is great homology in sequence.

Like you said same material and some more complex than others but of course the current surviving species seems more complex. That is because we survived and weak ones has died or be exterminated.

This is all part of evolution my friend. Also, all creatures die eventually, no matter how complex a species of greater a species is, it's still incomprehensible why we do not find human fossils dated back as old as some earlier organisms, if evolution is false.

Even a dinosaur would be no much intellilectually to humans. Humans could group and hunt and kill large game like that. You must add totally new material to a thing for it to change into a different structured thing. Things of the same kind cant not change into a different structured kind without outside of the kind.

They would all die eventually no matter how much they survive. Everybody who is living right now will be dead in 120 years, it doesn't matter how well we survive we all die eventually. If creation is true, it would show in the fossil record no mater how well creatures survived.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:49:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I somewhat explained this in great detail in our debate.

At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

No, similarity by itself does not mean that they are related. Exactly what argument are you referring to?

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

If common descent was false, things that are unrelated to morphology should be fairly random. For instance, the sequencing of ubiquitous proteins which fulfill basic functions and have nothing to do with how the organisms look. Since they have no relation to morphology, heredity is the only explanation for similarity. Why can they randomly not be similar? Because there are 10^93 different possibilities of random arrangements. So, shouldn't the molecules of morphologically similar organisms be similar? Sure. For the most part they are. However, consider ONLY those molecules that have nothing to do with morphology. Why would those be similar?

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

Sure. But this only applies to genes that specifically relate to morphology, environment, and resources. Something that works fine in both humans and fungi has NO relation to environment and resources.

2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Then DNA evidence would contradict evolution, evolution would be falsified and discarded in favor of another theory.

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

Doesn't explain why entire phylogenies would match.

3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

What stops extrapolation? "Kinds?" The term which you refuse to concretely define and keep changing the definition of?

4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.

The bible was written by ancient humans for religious purposes. While I can respect religious beliefs, it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered science.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:52:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:54:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I may be wrong but, don't we find more simplistic organisms as we "go back in time"?

Does that mean that God made simpler ones first, then created ones that were similar but more advanced after, and on and on?

If you trust that Charles Lyell, an early 19th century lawyer with no degree in geology, who hated the Bible, is a capable designer for everything that you believe about geology, in the 21st century. And you ignore the evidence, such as polystrate fossils, that shows that sedimentary layers were laid down quickly, rather than over geologic ages. And you ignore the fact that, generally speaking, more simplistic organisms live nearer to the ground and are likely to buried first in any catastrophic scenario, like a global flood. And you ignore the fact that marine sediments, and marine fossils are found inland where they shouldn't be, on every continent. And you believe that after millions of years of evolution and millions if not billions of species have existed, all remaining primitive, yet one and only one species has been able, in just a few thousand years, to make the social, cultural, and scientific advances that we have. If you meet all those requirements, and deny what the Bible says, then I guess I could see how you believe what you do. Given all those things, though, I'd have to say that you're still tricking yourself. It isn't God that's doing it.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 3:47:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:49:21 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I somewhat explained this in great detail in our debate.

No, you simply made an unsupported assertion about how you think it should be, if things were not related.

At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

No, similarity by itself does not mean that they are related. Exactly what argument are you referring to?

Every evolutionary argument, that I'm aware of, revolves around an assumption of similarity equals kinship.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

If common descent was false, things that are unrelated to morphology should be fairly random. For instance, the sequencing of ubiquitous proteins which fulfill basic functions and have nothing to do with how the organisms look. Since they have no relation to morphology, heredity is the only explanation for similarity. Why can they randomly not be similar? Because there are 10^93 different possibilities of random arrangements. So, shouldn't the molecules of morphologically similar organisms be similar? Sure. For the most part they are. However, consider ONLY those molecules that have nothing to do with morphology. Why would those be similar?

As I explained in our debate, you are simply asserting that those protein sequences should be random, in unrelated organisms. There is no comparative analysis to show that your assertion is correct, and that the sequences would indeed be random. No comparative analysis CAN be performed on, what you believe to be, unrelated organisms because all organisms are considered to be related through a common ancestor. Your assertion that there is no reason for them to be similar, is nothing more than conjecture, your opinion about what they would look like. Again, that is not a point that is scientifically supported.

Bottom line is that you could very well be comparing ubiquitous protein sequences, in totally unrelated organisms, and you couldn't even possibly know it because of your pre-assumption at the beginning, that those organism are related.

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

Sure. But this only applies to genes that specifically relate to morphology, environment, and resources.

How do you know that it only applies to genes that relate to morphology?? On what scientific, empirical fact do you base that assertion??

2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Then DNA evidence would contradict evolution, evolution would be falsified and discarded in favor of another theory.

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

Doesn't explain why entire phylogenies would match.

Nor does matching phylogenies rule anything in or out. All they show conclusively is that organisms can be grouped according to abitrary criteria. To rule anything out using phylogenies you must once again resort to assertion about what you THINK they should show, without the benefit of any comparative analysis. Pseudo-science.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 3:55:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This God strikes an emotional appeal with me.

I would assume the wisest being to be naturally driven by humor.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:08:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
IF there was no close genetic relationship, protein sequences of proteins unrelated to morphology must be random. This is under the assumption that evolution is false. If protein sequences depend only on genetic heredity and heredity doesn't exist, then they will be random because they are functionally redundant. Many sequences of proteins perform the same function. You claim that I am making a bare assertion yet you never countered my point on functional redundancy and that human cytochrome c works in yeast.

you are simply asserting that those protein sequences should be random, in unrelated organisms.

Where have I asserted this? Quote me.

None of my arguments rely on the assumption that similarity = kinship. If you thought that, you didn't analyze my arguments about nested hierarchy in close enough detail. You also didn't analyze my arguments about vestigial organs, and para-homology because you seem to think that I said similarity = kinship by itself. I didn't say that. You dropped the point on radiometric dating which is an independent method of evaluating fossil's strata. Similarity combined with the location of fossils based on radiometric dating, combined with observed micro-evolution combined with lack of any limiting mechanism for micro-evolution is proof of common descent as are nested hierarchies. I didn't say that just because they look similar, it means that they descended from each other. You attacked a strawman of my argument.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:12:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:54:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I may be wrong but, don't we find more simplistic organisms as we "go back in time"?

Does that mean that God made simpler ones first, then created ones that were similar but more advanced after, and on and on?

no, no...

That's the evilutionists tricking themselves with rocks.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:17:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
now we might depend on animals but animals don't depend on us
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:33:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:49:21 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

"Kinds?" The term which you refuse to concretely define and keep changing the definition of?

I have not changed the definition of kinds, that is false. As I said in the other thread, the original created kinds were organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Organisms that can bring forth after their kind. Due to variation within those kinds, different species you could say, it is difficult for us now after several thousand years, to go back and determine what the original created kinds were. That difficulty doesn't change the definition though.

I'm not sure why you even brought up the issue of kinds, in our debate. It was totally and completely irrelevant to the resolution.

What stops extrapolation? "Kinds"

Again, as I said in the debate, this is just simply shifting the burden of proof, and putting the onus for disproof on me, when you haven't even shown good evidence for what "allows" such a drastic extrapolation, in the first place.

You bring up speciation, but speciation doesn't show evidence of the type of added information that would be necessary for UCD, microbe-to man, onward-and-upward evolution. Different species of microbes are still microbes, different species of cows are still cows, different species of birds are still birds.

Don't you think that if evolution, to the degree that you believe it goes, were a continuing process that in the thousands of years that man has dealt with nature, that some species would be in a stage of speciation that would also correspond with a change in a higher classification?? That would eventually have to happen for UCD to be true, yet in thousands of years of experience with artificial selection, and thousands of generations in the labs, only horizontal speciation can be supported with any valid science. Anything beyond that can only be assumed.

4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.

The bible was written by ancient humans for religious purposes. While I can respect religious beliefs, it doesn't meet the criteria to be considered science.

Nor do evolutionary pseudo-science and assumptive arguments disprove it. In fact to date, given what we know to be factual and observable, the Bible is spot on when it says that organisms will bring forth after their kind.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:36:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 4:12:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:54:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I may be wrong but, don't we find more simplistic organisms as we "go back in time"?

Does that mean that God made simpler ones first, then created ones that were similar but more advanced after, and on and on?

no, no...

That's the evilutionists tricking themselves with rocks.

Now you're getting it. :)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:47:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 3:55:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This God strikes an emotional appeal with me.

I would assume the wisest being to be naturally driven by humor.

Indeed, just look at the platypus.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 4:48:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have not changed the definition of kinds, that is false. As I said in the other thread, the original created kinds were organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Organisms that can bring forth after their kind. Due to variation within those kinds, different species you could say, it is difficult for us now after several thousand years, to go back and determine what the original created kinds were. That difficulty doesn't change the definition though.

Yeah, you have. You've lumped all microbial life into the same kind. Microbial life that can't interbreed.

I'm not sure why you even brought up the issue of kinds, in our debate. It was totally and completely irrelevant to the resolution.

No, it was relevant because without a limiting mechanism, we can extrapolate evolution down to a common ancestor. As a limiting mechanism, you provided "kinds" as shown here:

Having the ability to both adapt to the current environment, as well as change to different kinds of organisms over long time periods is redundant. If organisms can become successful and survive, why would they need to change into different kinds, as a way of responding to the same kinds of selection pressures that they have already dealt with through adaptation??

Bottom line is that there is no known process by which a cow's dna becomes something other than cow dna. Two cows breeding will never produce anything other than more cow dna. If Pro can't provide an example of his claimed process in action then he's merely asserting it as fact, and putting the burden of proof on me to disprove his claim. I just provided a limiting factor, which Pro cannot overcome with anything more than the pseudo-scientific claims we've already discussed.


What stops extrapolation? "Kinds"

Again, as I said in the debate, this is just simply shifting the burden of proof, and putting the onus for disproof on me, when you haven't even shown good evidence for what "allows" such a drastic extrapolation, in the first place.

Micro-evolution and fossils. If you see a box falling through the air for 5 seconds, do you assume that it stopped after the 5 seconds that you were able to watch it, or do you assume that it fell all the way to the ground? Also, if you uncover a broken box on the ground later on, don't you reach the logical conclusion that it fell?

An analogy with evolution. We have seen a box falling (this is micro-evolution observed in our lifetimes). We see a broken box on the ground (these are fossils). Do we assume that the box stopped falling after 10 seconds and that the broken box is unrelated to the box that just fell? What if we hear a sound when the box hits the ground at the exact time that it should have hit the ground at the exact location that it should have hit?

You bring up speciation, but speciation doesn't show evidence of the type of added information that would be necessary for UCD, microbe-to man, onward-and-upward evolution. Different species of microbes are still microbes, different species of cows are still cows, different species of birds are still birds.

So, what are "microbes," "cows," and "birds?" You are comparing entire kingdoms to a species which you compare to a class (aves). There is no basis on which you are making those comparisons.

Don't you think that if evolution, to the degree that you believe it goes, were a continuing process that in the thousands of years that man has dealt with nature, that some species would be in a stage of speciation that would also correspond with a change in a higher classification?? That would eventually have to happen for UCD to be true, yet in thousands of years of experience with artificial selection, and thousands of generations in the labs, only horizontal speciation can be supported with any valid science. Anything beyond that can only be assumed.

Evolution on the scale you are talking about takes 10s of millions of years.

Nor do evolutionary pseudo-science and assumptive arguments disprove it. In fact to date, given what we know to be factual and observable, the Bible is spot on when it says that organisms will bring forth after their kind.

No, it contradicts fossil record. Fossils show whales evolving from a terrestrial mammal.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:36:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 4:08:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
IF there was no close genetic relationship, protein sequences of proteins unrelated to morphology must be random. This is under the assumption that evolution is false. If protein sequences depend only on genetic heredity and heredity doesn't exist, then they will be random because they are functionally redundant. Many sequences of proteins perform the same function. You claim that I am making a bare assertion yet you never countered my point on functional redundancy and that human cytochrome c works in yeast.

you are simply asserting that those protein sequences should be random, in unrelated organisms.

Where have I asserted this? Quote me.

"IF there was no close genetic relationship, protein sequences of proteins unrelated to morphology must be random."

In the paragraph right above this, as well as anywhere that you make this argument, you are asserting it as fact. You have no scientific foundation for asserting that the finding is unique to common descent because you have no comparative analysis to show that they would indeed be random in unrelated organisms.

None of my arguments rely on the assumption that similarity = kinship. If you thought that, you didn't analyze my arguments about nested hierarchy in close enough detail. You also didn't analyze my arguments about vestigial organs, and para-homology because you seem to think that I said similarity = kinship by itself. I didn't say that.

All of those arguments depend on similarity=kinship, vestigial organs assumes common descent.

You dropped the point on radiometric dating which is an independent method of evaluating fossil's strata.

Radiometric dating relies on assumptions too, and any non-biased voter who knows what they're talking about on that issue will know that it isn't a reliable method.

Similarity combined with the location of fossils based on radiometric dating,

Assumptions on both sides of that argument make them pseudo-science

combined with observed micro-evolution

Irrelevant unless you can show that there is a connection to UCD, which you admitted that you can't. As such, the claim is nothing more than an unfounded assertion.

combined with lack of any limiting mechanism for micro-evolution

Shifting the BoP without ever having shown your side to be true, beyond simply asserting it.

is proof of common descent as are nested hierarchies.

Assumption and assertion that isn't backed up by any scientific support such as comparative analysis with non-related organisms.

I didn't say that just because they look similar, it means that they descended from each other. You attacked a strawman of my argument.

I never said you did, but I did show why they stem from the same general argument, and showed why each argument was pseudo-scientific, and full of unvalidated assuption and assertion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:48:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:36:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 4:08:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
IF there was no close genetic relationship, protein sequences of proteins unrelated to morphology must be random. This is under the assumption that evolution is false. If protein sequences depend only on genetic heredity and heredity doesn't exist, then they will be random because they are functionally redundant. Many sequences of proteins perform the same function. You claim that I am making a bare assertion yet you never countered my point on functional redundancy and that human cytochrome c works in yeast.

you are simply asserting that those protein sequences should be random, in unrelated organisms.

Where have I asserted this? Quote me.

"IF there was no close genetic relationship, protein sequences of proteins unrelated to morphology must be random."

In the paragraph right above this, as well as anywhere that you make this argument, you are asserting it as fact. You have no scientific foundation for asserting that the finding is unique to common descent because you have no comparative analysis to show that they would indeed be random in unrelated organisms.

None of my arguments rely on the assumption that similarity = kinship. If you thought that, you didn't analyze my arguments about nested hierarchy in close enough detail. You also didn't analyze my arguments about vestigial organs, and para-homology because you seem to think that I said similarity = kinship by itself. I didn't say that.

All of those arguments depend on similarity=kinship, vestigial organs assumes common descent.

You dropped the point on radiometric dating which is an independent method of evaluating fossil's strata.

Radiometric dating relies on assumptions too, and any non-biased voter who knows what they're talking about on that issue will know that it isn't a reliable method.

Similarity combined with the location of fossils based on radiometric dating,

Assumptions on both sides of that argument make them pseudo-science

combined with observed micro-evolution

Irrelevant unless you can show that there is a connection to UCD, which you admitted that you can't. As such, the claim is nothing more than an unfounded assertion.

combined with lack of any limiting mechanism for micro-evolution

Shifting the BoP without ever having shown your side to be true, beyond simply asserting it.

is proof of common descent as are nested hierarchies.

Assumption and assertion that isn't backed up by any scientific support such as comparative analysis with non-related organisms.

I didn't say that just because they look similar, it means that they descended from each other. You attacked a strawman of my argument.

I never said you did, but I did show why they stem from the same general argument, and showed why each argument was pseudo-scientific, and full of unvalidated assuption and assertion.

Your claims of psuedo-science are unjustified, considering radiometric dating and evolution both adhere to the scientific method beautifully. Also, what makes you think that radiometric dating is unreliable?

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

"Recent puzzling observations of tiny variations in nuclear decay rates have led some to question the science of using decay rates to determine the relative ages of rocks and organic materials. Scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working with researchers from Purdue University, the University of Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Wabash College, tested the hypothesis that solar radiation might affect the rate at which radioactive elements decay and found no detectable effect."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.

1. If you are referring to the molecular evidence for evolution specifically chosen because it is independent of morphological variation and why they might independently align, you are dead wrong.

Please, just go look up how morphologically-independent genetic evidence is gathered. The ENTIRE POINT of morphologically-independent genetic evidence is the proximate environment CANNOT explain it.

2. False. Again, you are presenting a strawman of molecular evolution.

If the genes in question changed how organisms eat or are symbiotically connected, THEY WOULD NOT BE morphologically-independent genetic evidence.

Variability exists which is not morphologically-independent. That's what leads to adaptation to new environments.

Please stop conflating the two.

3. NO. Read answer 1 and 2.

4. Similarity on what level? Morphology or morphologically-independent genetic evidence?

4 (again). Absolutely.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:51:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

Molecular phylogenetics is focuses mainly on DNA sequences - particularly those involved in creating ubiquitous proteins. Proteins are made up polypeptides or strings of amino acids.

Amino acids are defined by codons which are strings of 3 nucleotides. Different arrangements of nucleotides can result in the same amino acids (for example, CGU, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, and AGG all create the amino acid arginine), and so different DNA sequences code for the same proteins in different species.

Thus, we can analyse the similarities and differences in the DNA sequences coding for proteins in different species and we find that the sequences are more similar in some organisms than others. The methodology of cladistics can be applied to the sequences coding for proteins and species can be arranged based on synapomorphies, showing a nesting of similarities and suggesting evolutionary relationships between organisms. The sequence coding for cytochrome c in humans, for example, is more similar to that in chimpanzees than in mice and the sequence is more similar amongst all of them than it is to the sequence for cytochrome c in plants. And these relationships aren't just found analysing the sequence for cytochrome c; they're found for all proteins. This didn't have to happen - in fact, given the many different possible combinations to code for a single protein it would be unexpected that a compelling nesting of similarities would occur for a single protein, much less all of them, if creationism were true. The sequence for cytochome c found in mice could just as easily be replaced by the sequence found in yeast and then comparing the sequences for cytochrome c would suggest that humans are more closely related to yeast than to mice while comparison of other protein sequences would suggest differently and no evolutionary relationships would be shown. However, instead analysis of the sequences which code for proteins in different organisms consistently show the same evolutionary relationships.

Furthermore, cladistic analysis of morphological traits (which aren't related to the DNA sequences which code for the proteins considered in the molecular traits) reveals a similar nesting of traits and the same evolutionary relationships. These identical but independent nested hierarchies are known as the twin nested hierarchy. With 10^38 different possible trees to arrange 30 taxa this also should not happen if creationism were unless God was a trickster.

It should be noted that mere similarity isn't sufficient to show evolutionary relationships and create a cladogram. Evolution is a Markov process and so it must conform to the relevant mathematics. Similarities must be shared-derived, showing a nesting of traits. This is why some creationists' argument for the cladistic organisation of cars fails; the similarities and differences in the traits found in cars don't conform to the mathematics involved in Markov processes and a nesting of similar traits is not found; rather cars show a mixing of traits and so common decent is not shown. Furthermore, independent phylogenies for cars won't consistently show conformity with statistical significance and so common decent would be shown to be false. Similarly, in the 18th century Carl Linnaeus attempted to arrange minerals using a methodology similar to cladistics, however since minerals aren't related by evolutionary processes this organisation of minerals has been shown to be false.
TayterJ
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 8:40:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God did not give anyone evidence of anything other than himself.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
(Romans 1:18-23)

A focus in verses 22-23, but all verses are applicable.

As unrighteous men, we have taken what we want out of the world and built our own illusory wall of understanding around ourselves, and took it rather than the glory of God.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 9:14:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 8:40:16 PM, TayterJ wrote:
God did not give anyone evidence of anything other than himself.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
(Romans 1:18-23)

A focus in verses 22-23, but all verses are applicable.

As unrighteous men, we have taken what we want out of the world and built our own illusory wall of understanding around ourselves, and took it rather than the glory of God.

What's glorious about god mode? I don't see the point in cheating the game, I'd rather play it properly.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:18:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Medic: "Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation."

Anna: Absolutely. There is no chronology in Gen 1: 1, 2.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:39:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

If they were created by intelligent design then I wouldn't say it's necessary.


2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

So different that we can't use them for sustenance, sure. But that doesn't necessarily entail that they need to be so similar, either.


a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

They could have created us with all the necessary enzymes. They're powerful enough to do that, right?


Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

No, they could be drastically different and still have the same food source.


This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

We could have drastically different systems.


3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.


Not necessarily to the extent that they do.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

Why would we just jump to saying a whale evolved from a cow? Did cows exist long enough ago to evolve that much? Why would they evolve in such a way as that? The theory of evolution isn't just playing Bingo with common ancestry, don't ya kno'?


4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

Well he managed to trick me.


The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Animals have similar animal babies? It's a breakthrough!


Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.

Nope.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:38:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:50:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:39:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The argument from evolutionists that, if God exists He is planting evidence to make it look as if evolution and universal common descent are true, is becoming more popular. That argument is entirely dependent on the assertion that similarity between organisms automatically means that those similar organism must be related by ancestry. That assertion raises some valid questions.

1. Is there a legitimate reason why non-related organisms should be similar to each other, especially at the molecular and chemical level?? Should plants and animals be molecularly similar, if they are not descended from a common ancestor??

The simple answer is yes. We share the same general living environment, same available resources, and we depend on each other as food sources.

2. What would be the consequences if God had created each kind of organism significantly different, so that there were no appearance of molecular similarity between organisms??

Think for a minute what that would entail. We live in a huge ecosystem with all life forms sharing a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. We depend on each other for our survivability. We depend on each other for food sources, to give us the energy that we need to sustain life. There is a delicate balance within that ecosystem which allows the survival of many different kinds of life forms. So what would it mean if all organisms were significantly different in make-up??

It would mean that each different kind of organism would be dependent on it's own kind for survival, even as a food source. If our food sources were significantly different than us, we would not be able to metabolize that food into usable energy. All life forms would either have to be...

a) cannibalistic, or
b)have the ability to create new digestive enzymes and metabolic functions to adapt to each new food source.

Obviously A would not be conducive to survivability of any of the organisms, thus not a good choice. Even just a cursory evaluation of the digestive and metabolic requirements for B is enough to show why an intelligent designer would not choose that option.

Let's assume for a moment though, that the designer had chosen option B. In order to avoid the appearance of similarities, no two organisms could share the same food source. Doing so would show a similar ability to digest and metabolize that organism. There would inevitably be chemical/molecular similarities in the organisms that shared the same food source.

This example only illustrates the consequences regarding one body system, digestive. Lather, rinse, and repeat for all other body and organ systems, respiratory, cardiovascular, etc. As I stated earlier, even a cursory look into the effects of making organisms drastically different from one another, molecularly, shows why an intelligent designer would choose to make unrelated organisms similar.

3. Is there a valid necessity that all organisms share molecular similarities??

Given the answer to the first two questions, and the example provided, the answer is obviously, yes, if the goal of the creator was to implement a delicately balanced ecosystem which allows for the survival of many different forms of life.

4. Is the evolutionist assumption that similarity equals kinship, a valid one??

It is valid to assume that similar organisms may have shared a common ancestor. An angus cow and a jersey cow likely shared a common ancestor. A sperm whale and a killer whale probably shared a common ancestor. To extrapolate that a whale evolved from say a cow, based on some similarities, however, is not a valid assumption. There are valid design reasons, as I've shown, for why unrelated organisms, within a balanced ecosystem, should show similarities. Therefore the assumption that similarities equal kinship, to the point of universal common descent, is not a valid assumption.

4. Is the "Trickster God" argument a valid one?? Is God trying to trick us??

With the above questions answered, we can finally get back to the original point of the thread. With everything considered, I think the answer to number 4 is a clear and resounding, no, God is not trying to trick us, thus it is not a valid argument.

The Bible tells us clearly in Genesis, that God created life forms to "bring forth after their kind". "After their kind", is repeated 10 times in chapter one alone. Why would that point need to be stressed, and stated so clearly?? How would the author have known that that particular reference would be so critical to future understanding of our origins, if the author were not inspired by the actual Creator?? The obvious answer is that he couldn't have known that such a point would be so critical in determining the worldview of future readers, without some inside knowledge that he could not possibly have had at that time.

Given the clarity and uniformity of the Bible, on this point, it is clear that God has told us what we need to know about His creation. It is not God that is trying to trick us, it's the evolutionists that are tricking themselves. They view the findings through their presupposition, that similarity equals kinship, and see that as a scientific assumption, rather than taking the Bible at it's word. God has given us the clear answer to the creation-evolution debate, thus it is the evolutionist who is tricking himself.

1. If you are referring to the molecular evidence for evolution specifically chosen because it is independent of morphological variation and why they might independently align, you are dead wrong.

Please, just go look up how morphologically-independent genetic evidence is gathered. The ENTIRE POINT of morphologically-independent genetic evidence is the proximate environment CANNOT explain it.

2. False. Again, you are presenting a strawman of molecular evolution.

If the genes in question changed how organisms eat or are symbiotically connected, THEY WOULD NOT BE morphologically-independent genetic evidence.

Variability exists which is not morphologically-independent. That's what leads to adaptation to new environments.

Please stop conflating the two.

3. NO. Read answer 1 and 2.

4. Similarity on what level? Morphology or morphologically-independent genetic evidence?

4 (again). Absolutely.