Thread 17941380

>"intelligent design"
>humans can't regrow lost adult teeth

Yeah, so intelligent.

>only animal to have infinite teeth and no aging thanks to eternally regenerating cells
>can be completely disabled by flipping it on its back
tbf to God, it was an early design

>>17941380 (OP)
intelligent design isn't just whether you personally like the design of an animal or not. It's a scientific theory which states that it is physically impossible for humans to come from single celled organisms, even after trillions of years.

>>17941405
>intelligent design isn't just whether you personally like the design of an animal or not
Why would a perfect God design creatures with so many obvious faults? It makes more sense if you consider that "god" is actually imperfect or a bungling demiurge

>>17941405
>It's a scientific theory
What observation would refute it?

>>17941380 (OP)
Intelligent design isn't real. It's the modern form of low IQ Christian creationism
>>17941405
It's not a scientific theory and it's false. And no one who understands molecular biology or genetics would fall for the low IQ talking points.
Evolution and universal common descent are proven facts of reality. Genesis is not real history. Adam and Eve have been mathematically refuted as well.

>>17941414
scientific creationists do believe in micro-evolution but also believe that the earth went to shit after the fall of Adam and Eve, so any mishaps with evolution can be blamed on that.

Lets not forget that your idea of "bad design" is subjective anyway as my idea of bad design will differ from yours. Also, there is more than meets to eye to many animals, so unless you know literally everything, perhaps you should practice some humility on the subject.

>>17941553
>Evolution and universal common descent are proven facts of reality. Genesis is not real history. Adam and Eve have been mathematically refuted as well.

garbage in garbage out. Not unusual for arrogant secular scientists.

>>17941464
It's not a visual observation but a logic problem. Certain functions of the human body rely on other functions, which rely on other functions, so-on and so-on. This is not logically possible if evolution as a mechanism only changes one thing at a time, and said thing must improve the animal's chances of survival.

If macro-evolution (as we know it) is real, then there would be no bodily funcions which rely on other bodily functions which do not necessarily increase the chances of survival.

>>17941719
You don't understand anything about genetics, math, or biology. Evolution and universal common descent are proved facts of reality.
>>17941725
>Muh irreducible complexity
You don't understand biology. Interlocked traits only evolve AFTER their parts evolve, THEN their interactive dynamics can evolve and become co dependent. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

>>17941718
There is no such thing as a scientific creationist. We've literally refuted young earth creationism with basic chemistry and geology.

>>17941740
>my secularism biased group came to a secular conclusion.

not surprising.

>>17941733
>You don't understand biology. Interlocked traits only evolve AFTER their parts evolve, THEN their interactive dynamics can evolve and become co dependent. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

That's alot of dogma. I should just take your word for it?

>>17941746
No, the evidence and math is not a bias. You just don't know what you're talking about. Ironically, your religious creation mythology is the bias.
>That's alot of dogma. I should just take your word for it
Not a single thing there is dogma, it's directly observed facts.
Evolution is a fact. It will never stop being true just because you deny it.

>>17941553
>Evolution and universal common descent are proven facts of reality.
Not scientifically. Moreover, proving the existence of genetics is far from showing that all life that exists now originally emerged from proteins that emerged spontaneously from non-life. Showing variations between animals today is not equivalent to whatever it is you apparently think happened in the geological time scale of prehistory. Trying to equivocate between the two, as if one proves the other, is a classical fallacy.

So, the existence of genetics doesn't scientifically prove your fanfic about the past. To get that, you have to fill in almost all of the details from your own imagination, which is where that ultimately comes from. That's why no one can really agree about what evolution actually is in any significant detail. It's mainly a work of imagination, based on lots of metaphysical assumptions, and it still fails to ultimately square with hard facts. While the picture of "evolution" is different for each individual believer in it, the only thing its believers all say for sure is that they reject the biblical account. And that is ultimately because they don't like the implications toward the way they've chosen to live their life and because of their philosophical outlook on life (i.e. materialism). It's not because of any definite scientific reason. However this is often pretended to be the case by using various fallacies. One such example is by equivocating between their theories about the origins of life, and genetics (which is an actual science), making it a form of pseudoscience. Knowledge of genetics does not confer the ability to make metaphysical claims. That is once again fallacy.

>>17941414
>Why would a perfect God design creatures with so many obvious faults?
According to the biblical account, the faults only came in after sin happened. So the reason for the faults would be due to rebellion against God, and the problems we see weren't originally there in the beginning or the original design. Because of this, you can't really frame that as an objection to the biblical worldview.

I genuinely think stupid, ignorant, mouthbreathing retards are the greatest threat to humanity as a whole.
It used to be that only the moderately intelligent would gather, discuss, and spread ideas. By oral tradition, by books, by newspaper, by radio, by television, and even on the internet. There was always some barrier to entry, some way to filter out the truly retarded.

But in our greed, we created the perfect devices for retards to congregate with other retards and spread their retarded ideas.

>>17941725
>It's not a visual observation
Then it's not a scientific theory.

>>17941877
>Not scientifically
Yes,it has been proven scientifically. You sound like an orthobro midwit.

>>17941877
>That's why no one can really agree about what evolution actually is in any significant detail. It's mainly a work of imagination, based on lots of metaphysical assumptions
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read and it shows you don't know what you're talking about at all.

>>17941912
They're changing it all the time. Nobody, for example, still believes in the original conception of Charles Darwin. But they like certain parts of his idea so much, developed such an attachment to it intellectually and emotionally, that they clung onto it as part of their mythology, even if they've had to rewrite various aspects of it since then, to the point where you would think they should have questioned some of the original assumptions, but they haven't.

>>17941918
Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over generations. This has not changed at all. It is the specific implementation of descent with modification as Darwin outlined.
You literally don't know what you're taking about

>>17941927
>You literally don't know what you're taking about
You are a brainless drone. You keep repeating this phrase in every post while being unable to respond coherently. Ironically, the statement may apply to you more than anyone. If you think Charles Darwin's theory was right about everything, you are very much out of touch with reality.