sleeper;1221762 wrote:Your example loses on all levels. No one is creating anything from scratch. There is no designer, there is no guy picking and choosing genes. Gosh a ruddies.

You asked how a creationist would explain the similarities in DNA. While I've never been a young-earth creationist, it wouldn't be that hard to fathom given such a creationist view. The similarity in DNA is hardly a stumping point, as it can easily be seen as the same creator using the same model and making small edits as he went along.

Call it the "Lazy God's Creation."

sleeper;1221762 wrote:Your example loses on all levels. No one is creating anything from scratch. There is no designer, there is no guy picking and choosing genes. Gosh a ruddies.

You've based on example losing on a foregone conclusion. Logically fallacious.

O-Trap;1221764 wrote:You asked how a creationist would explain the similarities in DNA. While I've never been a young-earth creationist, it wouldn't be that hard to fathom given such a creationist view. The similarity in DNA is hardly a stumping point, as it can easily be seen as the same creator using the same model and making small edits as he went along.

Call it the "Lazy God's Creation."

Thanks for the clarification. It's still broken but at least it explains the POV you were going for.

O-Trap;1221766 wrote:You've based on example losing on a foregone conclusion. Logically fallacious.

I have faith that I was not using a logical fallacy. EZ.

sleeper;1221761 wrote:No chance. It makes far more sense to start from a one celled organism than to start from a human and go to a tree.

Yes, it does. But where your argument falls apart is you would have much more variation in the DNA then you are observing. You're talking 2 to a factor of millions or billions and so there would be a massive dispersion of the gene pool. That's why I said that such an observation actually supports intelligent design because the variation is far too low to have been random mutations.

gut;1221775 wrote:Yes, it does. But where your argument falls apart is you would have much more variation in the DNA then you are observing. You're talking 2 to a factor of millions or billions and so there would be a massive dispersion of the gene pool. That's why I said that such an observation actually supports intelligent design because the variation is far too low to have been random mutations.

Except you forgot that not all species survive; most go extinct. The existing species are what's left of the billions of different variations.

sleeper;1221771 wrote:Thanks for the clarification. It's still broken but at least it explains the POV you were going for.

If one starts with the idea that some creative entity made living things, it really isn't broken, as it makes sense for such a being to use the same general mold to make different things.

Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that the similarity in DNA doesn't really prove anything in either direction, but I was only speaking to that one specific example.

O-Trap;1221778 wrote:If one starts with the idea that some creative entity made living things, it really isn't broken, as it makes sense for such a being to use the same general mold to make different things.

Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is that the similarity in DNA doesn't really prove anything in either direction, but I was only speaking to that one specific example.

If one starts with an idea that a ghost in the sky created everything, they should be locked up in a psych ward for eternity. It's fraud that anyone would even consider the possibility of a god, much less dedicate their life to a man-made cult trying to praise something that can never and has never been proven.

sleeper;1221779 wrote:If one starts with an idea that a ghost in the sky created everything, they should be locked up in a psych ward for eternity. It's fraud that anyone would even consider the possibility of a god, much less dedicate their life to a man-made cult trying to praise something that can never and has never been proven.

Again, you're using a plum-line for "proven" that would be impotent of even having that discussion. Inasmuch as a person uses that presupposition, you'd be correct. However, the presupposition is just that.

It's no more or less fraud to start with one presupposition as another. If I determine that music is the authoritative study by which we can evaluate what is and is not true, I may have a claim that anyone who bases their views on anything else is a lunatic, but such a claim is only consistent with my own presupposition about music. If I was to ask for proof, I would be asking for musical proof, but if I'm asking for musical proof about something that isn't musical, then I have a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will ever prove anything about something that exists outside of music.

To bring this full-circle, it's no different from me asking for scientific proof about something that is, by definition, not observable through science. If it were, it would cease to be what it is.

sleeper;1221777 wrote:Except you forgot that not all species survive; most go extinct. The existing species are what's left of the billions of different variations.

No, I'm not forgetting them. The point is they would have had to die out in a PATTERN to result in the same abnormally close DNA pool. The lack of variation supports intelligent design, not random evolution.

sleeper;1221713 wrote:I work on a computer, almost all day, almost every day. It's not too hard to pop on here and make some posts.

And I don't live in Ohio.

Fair enough. Least busy in the USA then.

"some posts?"

Dude. :rolleyes:

"I'm gonna shove a 11 inch, greased dildo up Sleeper's ass someday".

Signed:

God.

O-Trap;1221780 wrote:Again, you're using a plum-line for "proven" that would be impotent of even having that discussion. Inasmuch as a person uses that presupposition, you'd be correct. However, the presupposition is just that.

It's no more or less fraud to start with one presupposition as another. If I determine that music is the authoritative study by which we can evaluate what is and is not true, I may have a claim that anyone who bases their views on anything else is a lunatic, but such a claim is only consistent with my own presupposition about music. If I was to ask for proof, I would be asking for musical proof, but if I'm asking for musical proof about something that isn't musical, then I have a self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody will ever prove anything about something that exists outside of music.

To bring this full-circle, it's no different from me asking for scientific proof about something that is, by definition, not observable through science. If it were, it would cease to be what it is.

Great. Let's throw our hands up in the air and just accept god exists because a 3000 year old book that says so. Where do I sign up?

gut;1221782 wrote:No, I'm not forgetting them. The point is they would have had to die out in a PATTERN to result in the same abnormally close DNA pool. The lack of variation supports intelligent design, not random evolution.

This post lost me completely. I don't follow your logic at all and that's not a good thing.

fish82;1221806 wrote:Fair enough. Least busy in the USA then.

"some posts?"

Dude. :rolleyes:

Posts =/= time
Posts =/= effort

It probably took you half hour to type your post. It took me 10 seconds to write this one.

sleeper;1221828 wrote:Posts =/= time
Posts =/= effort

It probably took you half hour to type your post. It took me 10 seconds to write this one.

Indeed. Good one? :rolleyes:

Footwedge;1221809 wrote:"I'm gonna shove a 11 inch, greased dildo up Sleeper's ass someday".

Signed:

God.

He'd find a way to blame LJ.

sleeper;1221826 wrote:This post lost me completely. I don't follow your logic at all and that's not a good thing.

The lack of variance in the DNA you highlighted points to a pattern, or design, if you will. Under randomness as would be suggested under evolution, we would observe much more variation in the DNA. Heck, down one branch you end-up with 50% difference from the original and down another a different 50% meaning those two endpoints share 0% in common. I don't know how it could be said any more simply.

gut;1221895 wrote:The lack of variance in the DNA you highlighted points to a pattern, or design, if you will. Under randomness as would be suggested under evolution, we would observe much more variation in the DNA. Heck, down one branch you end-up with 50% difference from the original and down another a different 50% meaning those two endpoints share 0% in common. I don't know how it could be said any more simply.

Evolution isn't random though. You're basic premise is false. Also the branches aren't simple 50/50 splits; I mean are you straight up retarded? No offense, but you don't know shit about evolution if you believe its a 50/50 split.

sleeper;1221744 wrote:Great. I'd love to hear more from the guy who think god just snapped his fingers and poof we were all just created. :rolleyes:

God created AIDS to then and cancer. Next time you see a kid rotting from AIDS, remember your god did it. How does that feel?

Strawman instead of discussing the content of the post huh? I'm sorry that we pointed out the facts that macro-evolution is NOT proven (or even really evidenced by the fossil record) but no need to go all "sleeper esque" and jump to the other end of the sinking ship.

jmog;1221940 wrote:Strawman instead of discussing the content of the post huh? I'm sorry that we pointed out the facts that macro-evolution is NOT proven (or even really evidenced by the fossil record) but no need to go all "sleeper esque" and jump to the other end of the sinking ship.

There's nothing to "discuss". No credible scientist doubts micro and/or macro evolution. I have no idea why the terms macro and micro even exist; evolution 1, creation 0(always and forever ZERO).

O-Trap;1221766 wrote:You've based on example losing on a foregone conclusion. Logically fallacious.

Sleeper with a logical fallicy, I really find that hard to believe O-Trap, the man is all about "logic and reason" :laugh:

sleeper;1221515 wrote:I'd also like to add in response to jhay78. Only in the religious world is the lack of not being able to prove something doesn't exist a valid defense. We can also not prove that invisible unicorns do not exist, so does that mean they exist? Science, logic, and reason do not waste time on trying to prove something doesn't exist. Do you know how unfathomably stupid that sounds?

Faith is trash, lack of evidence disproving something is trash, you know, the kids know it, hell even the dog knows it. Call a spade a spade for once in your life; religion is fraud.

My point was that the evidence for God's existence is more plausible than the evidence for his non-existence. With invisible unicorns, it's the opposite.

sleeper;1221714 wrote:The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Small changes accumulated over billions of years equals macro evolution. Keep shoveling the BS though.

The other difference is one has been observed, the other hasn't. And the formula for macro-evolution is small changes accumulated over billions of years plus insanely random chance occurrences that are akin to dynamiting a pile of millions of letters and having them fall and land perfectly assembled into Shakespeare's Hamlet.

sleeper;1221777 wrote:Except you forgot that not all species survive; most go extinct. The existing species are what's left of the billions of different variations.

Plus all the fossils that are everywhere. Oh wait . . .

sleeper;1221946 wrote:There's nothing to "discuss". No credible scientist doubts micro and/or macro evolution. I have no idea why the terms macro and micro even exist; evolution 1, creation 0(always and forever ZERO).

1. You are 100% wrong that "no credible scientist doubts macro evolution", but why should we keep showing you facts when you just jump to strawman conclusions?
2. If you have no idea why macro and micro evolution exists then maybe you are in the wrong discussion and we should talk about something on a simpler level?

sleeper;1221919 wrote:Evolution isn't random though. You're basic premise is false. Also the branches aren't simple 50/50 splits; I mean are you straight up retarded? No offense, but you don't know **** about evolution if you believe its a 50/50 split.

You can't possibly be this dense to miss the point being made. The basic premise, which for some reason appears too complicated for you to grasp, is that evolution from a common source as you claim would yield much more variation between the DNA than observed.

I wasn't saying evolution is random - although I'm not sure why you claim it isn't - and the 50/50 thing was just trying to simplify things but I see now you are trolling yourself after your trolling blew up in your face.