- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/22/26 at 3:19 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 2/22/26 at 3:19 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I’m not arguing that science disproves God or that materialism is a metaphysical truth. I’m defending this: evolutionary biology explains biological change through observable, testable processes. Its limits are methodological. They describe how the method works, not what ultimate reality must be.
As a bit of an aside, I worked on a medical animation a while back on part of our immune system called the compliment system. It's the same basic type of immune system that is found in sponges.
1
Posted on 2/22/26 at 3:26 pm to Auburn1968
quote:That’s interesting. The complement system is a great example because it shows how deeply conserved some biological mechanisms are. Variations of it show up not just in sponges but across a wide range of metazoans, which is exactly what you’d expect if complex immune responses were built incrementally on older molecular scaffolding rather than appearing all at once.
As a bit of an aside, I worked on a medical animation a while back on part of our immune system called the compliment system. It's the same basic type of immune system that is found in sponges.
It’s one of many cases where comparative biology and genetics line up nicely with the evolutionary model.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 3:44 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:Yep.
And no one expects to observe a fish giving birth to an amphibian. Evolutionary biology, like other historical disciplines, infers past change from present evidence using known mechanisms. Independent lines of evidence, genetics, fossil succession, comparative anatomy, and biogeography converge on the same branching patterns. That convergence is what gives the model its strength.
You made this point earlier with a different example, but after the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago most existing species were wiped out. The age of mammals followed, with an explosion of subsequent species. Many of those species gave way to better adapted ones over time. Sans macroevolution, those facts are really inexplicable.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 4:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I’ve probably repeated most of my core points by now. But a lot of people were introduced to evolution through a particular lens very early in life, so even entertaining alternative explanations can feel destabilizing. When a belief is tied to identity or community, it’s not just an abstract idea being examined.
You made this point earlier with a different example
That’s why I find cognitive dissonance so interesting. It’s not a moral failure or a sign of stupidity. It’s a normal psychological response to tension between deeply held beliefs and new information. The brain tends to protect coherence first and analyze second. That dynamic alone explains a lot of how these conversations unfold.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 4:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The age of mammals followed, with an explosion of subsequent species. Many of those species gave way to better adapted ones over time. Sans macroevolution, those facts are really inexplicable.
This is why I have asked at least twice how species are introduced in an ID/creationism model.
Did the Earth at one point have no Bison and then an eye blink later a breeding population of them just appeared out of thin air? And then the same thing with Hyenas, Green Anacondas, and Kangaroos at other points in time? Should we not be surprised if herds of new species of megafauna just show up in various ecosystems tomorrow?
Posted on 2/22/26 at 7:25 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
You seem fond of starting arguments but not finishing them. If you’re going to make an assertion, support it. Dropping a declarative line every few pages without evidence or explanation doesn’t advance the discussion. It just adds noise.
What is said is pretty obvious. Nothing about macroevolution is contradictory to the Bible. I see people claim it is all the time. They just never are able to support that statement with any evidence whatsoever. It's a pretty elementary and obvious thought process, but I'll spell it out for you:
1. God creates the heavens and the earth
2. To us, that can look like a process that took millions of years and developed from multiple stages.
3. Trying to pretend this somehow disproves the creation story only proves the goals of the person making such claims, nothing more.
As for macroevolution in general, it simply has no evidence. I used to be a firm believer in it, because that's what we were taught in school, but then I started actually reading what scientists were saying and looking at the fossils they claimed showed their conclusions. The stone cold reality is they have no discovery whatsoever that would lead someone to the conclusion that macroevolution is the origin of our species, or even any evidence of one animal having ever evolved into another. It's clearly nonsense. The burden of proof here is on the people who believe it, not on the people who cleary see the "evidence" is completely devoid of any substance.
This post was edited on 2/22/26 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 2/22/26 at 8:37 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:There are two separate issues being blended together here, and they should be kept distinct.
What is said is pretty obvious. Nothing about macroevolution is contradictory to the Bible. I see people claim it is all the time. They just never are able to support that statement with any evidence whatsoever. It's a pretty elementary and obvious thought process, but I'll spell it out for you:
1. God creates the heavens and the earth
2. To us, that can look like a process that took millions of years and developed from multiple stages.
3. Trying to pretend this somehow disproves the creation story only proves the goals of the person making such claims, nothing more.
As for macroevolution in general, it simply has no evidence. I used to be a firm believer in it, because that's what we were taught in school, but then I started actually reading what scientists were saying and looking at the fossils they claimed showed their conclusions. The stone cold reality is they have no discovery whatsoever that would lead someone to the conclusion that macroevolution is the origin of our species, or even any evidence of one animal having ever evolved into another. It's clearly nonsense. The burden of proof here is on the people who believe it, not on the people who cleary see the "evidence" is completely devoid of any substance.
One is theological. Whether macroevolution contradicts the Bible is a question about interpretation and authority. If someone believes God created through a long process, that is a coherent theological position. Evolution does not require atheism and it does not attempt to address ultimate causation. That is philosophy or theology.
The other issue is empirical. The claim that macroevolution has “no evidence whatsoever” is not theological. It is a factual claim about biology. And it is simply incorrect. Evolution is supported by converging lines of evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, genetics, and observed population change. If by “creation” you mean ultimate authorship, that is a different discussion. But if you are asserting that macroevolution lacks evidence, that is a scientific claim and it requires specifics.
“No discovery whatsoever” is not an argument. It is a declaration. If there is truly zero evidence, it should be straightforward to explain the following:
1. The hominin fossil sequence. We have a graded series from Australopithecus to early Homo to archaic Homo sapiens showing progressive changes in cranial capacity, dentition, and bipedal structure, appearing in stratigraphic order. Which fossils are misdated or misidentified, and how?
2. Whale evolution. Fossils such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus show a transition from terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales, including predictable changes in ear structure, limb reduction, and nostril position. Where does that anatomical progression fail?
3. Endogenous retroviruses. Humans and other primates share identical viral insertions at the same chromosomal locations. Common ancestry predicts that pattern. Independent creation does not. What is the alternative explanation?
4. Human chromosome 2. Humans have 46 chromosomes while other great apes have 48. Human chromosome 2 contains internal telomere sequences and a vestigial second centromere consistent with a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. If that is not evidence of common ancestry, what is it?
None of this involves a dog giving birth to a cat. Evolution describes populations diverging over generations. The evidence is in shared genetic architecture and nested patterns that independently converge.
So if your position is that there is zero evidence, let’s get specific. Which of these lines of evidence fails, and why?
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:45 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
Intelligent Design
quote:
I guess we are just supposed to have faith that all of this evolved because lightning struck some soup and then randomly mutated into this!
Science doesn’t require faith. That’s why it’s science. It’s a method to test our reality to see what it is. Science has demonstrated that biological evolution is a certainty.
How life started is a completely different question. Maybe it was amino acids struck by lightning, or maybe it was aliens, or maybe a supernatural deity or deities. Who knows? No one. However, we can be absolutely certain that all known life on earth is genetically and biologically related all coming from a single common ancestor species.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 3:56 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:Just wanted to give you another chance to back up your claim before I assume you abandoned thead:
imjustafatkid
quote:
As for macroevolution in general, it simply has no evidence. I used to be a firm believer in it, because that's what we were taught in school, but then I started actually reading what scientists were saying and looking at the fossils they claimed showed their conclusions. The stone cold reality is they have no discovery whatsoever that would lead someone to the conclusion that macroevolution is the origin of our species, or even any evidence of one animal having ever evolved into another. It's clearly nonsense.
Page 18 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News