Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat does it matter what is alive today? The fossil record is clear, there are at least two lines that had feathers and were around for millions of years. Just because we live at this end of time doesn't change that. If you are determined to introduce a grand designer, show me the money. Where is it? What do you see other than its handywork? You see some invisible hand coming down every few nanoseconds and slucing through reluctant DNA to magically form the next bacteria slightly better at attacking ants?
the statement was meant to be seen in terms of what we have at present, are not feathers exclusive to birds today? there are no other contemporary species that that exhibit feathers, are there?
How much control over the evolutionary process does this magical designer have? Does it control the movement of every molecule and intervene in every reaction that leads to a better version of some life form? What about the life forms that go backwards? Did the designer figure that one was too advanced and maybe a bit to presumptuous and had to be knocked down a step or two? That nasty amphibian, so superior, I don't think it needs those eyes in that dark cave, strike thee eyes from yonder frog, thee needeth it not! Is that your magical designer?
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat does it matter what is alive today?
What does it matter what is alive today?
The answer is by fundamentalists young earth creationists that why bother in what is not explainable by the genisis? God created it all as it is today, then fossils must be wrong. An because of the fact that evolutionists are finding fossils showing how it was millions of years ago, then it must be all wrong.
If they are shown evidence of evolution in action, then it must be wrong. Because it contradicts genisis.
If they are explained radiological measurements of time, then the explaination must be wrong. Because it contradicts genisis.
If they are explained any physics that are used by scientists evolutionists, then they must be wrong. Because they contradict genisis.
And if you contradict genisis it must be wrong, because dogma #1 is that genisis is the ultimate Truth, and this proves itself!
Americans produce magnificient scientists, but they also produce YECreationsists. This is a cotnradiction. Is the educational system in US so diversified - high quality vs low quality science classes? Is really US going to be a teocracy?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousei am not arguing against diversity of species, nor of adaptation to environment, of course there is a great diversity of species within a species, but a lion who is fitter than all other lions, does not become an elephant, he is just a stronger lion than all the other lions.
What does it matter what is alive today? The fossil record is clear, there are at least two lines that had feathers and were around for millions of years. Just because we live at this end of time doesn't change that. If you are determined to introduce a grand designer, show me the money. Where is it? What do you see other than its handywork? You see some i k cave, strike thee eyes from yonder frog, thee needeth it not! Is that your magical designer?
as for the argument about design or otherwise, what is it you people do not understand about the evaluation of data? how someone may take the exact same piece of data and interpret it in a completely different way? it does not negate the data, nor does it prove the existence of a creator, its just a different interpretation, a different evaluation, that is all! for example, are we to deny that within a single cell there is order? are we to deny that within a single cell there is functionality? are we to deny that there are complex mechanisms that are interdependent on each other? the words of the illustrious and learned Michael J.Behe, professor of biochemistry, (peace be upon him) spring to mind,
“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.” 😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat a quack. 😛
i am not arguing against diversity of species, nor of adaptation to environment, of course there is a great diversity of species within a species, but a lion who is fitter than all other lions, does not become an elephant, he is just a stronger lion than all the other lions.
as for the argument about design or otherwise, what is it you people do n ...[text shortened]... fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.” 😀
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvaluation of data? I don't get what you mean.
i am not arguing against diversity of species, nor of adaptation to environment, of course there is a great diversity of species within a species, but a lion who is fitter than all other lions, does not become an elephant, he is just a stronger lion than all the other lions.
as for the argument about design or otherwise, what is it you people do n ...[text shortened]... fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.” 😀
For instance, water boils at 100 and freezes at 0c. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s, the sound barrier is 340.29 m / s. A hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron.
How can you 'evaluate' that any differently?
Also Michael Behe lives in Bethlehem, Pensylvania. Need i say anymore?!
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobits an interpretation noobster my friend, nothing more, an evaluation of the mind, the materialist sees the exact same things, order, diversity, functionality, interdependence, but he attributes no value to them other than what he observes, to others such outstanding order from "chance" is incomprehensible, interdependence of intricate biological systems speaks to them of design, functionality of intelligence and purpose, of course these things cannot be proven, nor do they in themselves prove or disprove anything, it is simply an interpretation of the data.
Evaluation of data? I don't get what you mean.
For instance, water boils at 100 and freezes at 0c. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s, the sound barrier is 340.29 m / s. A hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron.
How can you 'evaluate' that any differently?
Also Michael Behe lives in Bethlehem, Pensylvania. Need i say anymore?!
for example, with regard to the order of the living cell, the theologian sees confirmation of the Biblical text, 'God is a god not of disorder, but of order', and thus his faith is confirmed by the observation of science! we take another, 'God is abundant in dynamic energy', he examines the universe, he sees colossal star systems, an abundance of dynamic energy, he is happy, his faith is strengthened by this knowledge. He observes the atom, he knows that if it is 'split', it will release incredible energy, his faith is strengthened, at every level there is an abundance of dynamic energy,reflective of the one who created these things, himself, abundant in dynamic energy.
It proves nothing, for it is a simple evaluation of these things with his own mind, an interpretation of the data, nothing more, and if anyone asserts that it is anything more, then i do not think that this can be substantiated, although i would like to see them try 😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…It seems most UNLIKELY that an organism represented by such a restricted ecology should have survived so long.
why do every time i come here i need to meet a challenge, it would be really refreshing just to have some fun for a change, i dont mind anyone making fun of my theology, as long as i can have some fun with their evaluation of data, and no, it wasn't enough
peripatus not a 'missing link'.
Many biologists, taking into account the mixture of chara ...[text shortened]... ELDER, Ph.D.,
you people are making me turn to creationist sites, ahhhh, im melting!!!!!
… (my emphasis)
and the rational/logical/scientific premise for your assertion that it is “most UNLIKELY” that an organism living in a very restricted ecology should have survived so long is…..?
how would it logically follow from:
1, organism X lives in a restricted ecology
that:
2, it is “most UNLIKELY” that an organism could live very long in that ecology
?
-surely that would depend in part on how long that restricted ecology lasted.
and which ecology is “restricted”? the sea ecology or the land ecology?
…you people are making me turn to creationist sites,
..…
I was wondering where you where getting that unscientific crap from.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltoni just googled it and it came up with the first site, i wasn't even sure whether it was pro creation or not, and to be perfectly honest with you Andrew, i never understood the line of reasoning myself!
[b]…It seems most UNLIKELY that an organism represented by such a restricted ecology should have survived so long.
… (my emphasis)
and the rational/logical/scientific premise for your assertion that it is “most UNLIKELY” that an organism living in a very restricted ecology should have survived so long is…..?
how would it logically follow ...[text shortened]... ationist sites,
..…[/b]
I was wondering where you where getting that unscientific crap from.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLike I said, how does such a creationist imagine this creation work being done? Is it as I mentioned, a nanosecond by nanosecond control of all chemical reactions that lead to or improves life? Again I ask, what about life forms that regress? Do you deny that happens? If so, why would a creator regress life? I notice you did not address these issues.
i just googled it and it came up with the first site, i wasn't even sure whether it was pro creation or not, and to be perfectly honest with you Andrew, i never understood the line of reasoning myself!
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousewhat am i, the creator? i addressed perfectly adequately to noobster how the creationist thinks, well how i think about these things, claiming proof of nothing, if you noticed, and now you are seeking proof, what is it about, "it proves nothing, it is just an evaluation of the mind that you do not understand?" do you want me to evaluate regression of life? ok give an example and i shall see how i can evaluate it, if i cannot , then perhaps someone else can, even you for example, for you have your own evaluation of these things, even as i have mine, you are not me and i am not you 🙂
Like I said, how does such a creationist imagine this creation work being done? Is it as I mentioned, a nanosecond by nanosecond control of all chemical reactions that lead to or improves life? Again I ask, what about life forms that regress? Do you deny that happens? If so, why would a creator regress life? I notice you did not address these issues.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo the general idea of creationists is 'it happens somehow, how and why I have no idea, short term, long term, picosecond by picosecond, once every thousand years, who knows, we just know evolution is WRONG.'. Is that the general concensus?
what am i, the creator? i addressed perfectly adequately to noobster how the creationist thinks, well how i think about these things, claiming proof of nothing, if you noticed, and now you are seeking proof, what is it about, "it proves nothing, it is just an evaluation of the mind that you do not understand?" do you want me to evaluate regression ...[text shortened]... e your own evaluation of these things, even as i have mine, you are not me and i am not you 🙂
Originally posted by sonhousesigh...., there is no such thing as a general consensus and what are the alternatives, that we offer up incense to an image of Mr.Hawkins every morning, blindly accepting everything that comes our way, without questioning its validity?
So the general idea of creationists is 'it happens somehow, how and why I have no idea, short term, long term, picosecond by picosecond, once every thousand years, who knows, we just know evolution is WRONG.'. Is that the general concensus?
Look at the hostility it engenders when someone has the audacity to claim that its fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organised themselves into living systems, ' he is decried as a heretic, to be burned at the stake with copies of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution at his feet!
If M.J.Behe or anyone else for that matter claims that there seems to be evidence of design, then what of it? Why the hostility, if evolution is a theory which cannot be falsified, and intelligent design is also a theory, then why should one not be allowed to examine the evidence? To make a personal evaluation for ourselves? It seems to me, that the evolutionists, by limiting there search to unintelligent causes have the real problem, for there are many realities, which they cannot explain not withstanding the quite glaring lack of anything remotely resembling evidence, my goodness you get some self replicating RNA in a test-tube and you guys think your problems are solved! you believe what you want, but others are perfectly entitled to look at the very same data and make their own evaluations and draw their own conclusions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf there really was an intelligent designer, there wouldn't be any people believing in intelligent design.
sigh...., there is no such thing as a general consensus and what are the alternatives, that we offer up incense to an image of Mr.Hawkins every morning, blindly accepting everything that comes our way, without questioning its validity?
Look at the hostility it engenders when someone has the audacity to claim that its fundamentally implausible th ...[text shortened]... d to look at the very same data and make their own evaluations and draw their own conclusions.
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrawhat you mean like the stupid old professor of biochemistry, yeah that's real dumb that is????? Issac Newton, according to your statement would also constitute a dumbass as would many other extremely brilliant persons who just have not limited there search to unintelligent causes, feeling vindicated now? Perhaps you would like a list of exceptionally gifted scientists who had a personal belief in God, i could put it in no particular order, just leave it there and hope that like matter, it organises itself, wish me well.
If there really was an intelligent designer, there wouldn't be any people believing in intelligent design.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo we are just supposed to fall over and play dead over just someone doubts evolution with nothing more than it looks like intelligent design to me? You do realize that is all you have, just gut reactions, no evidence other than a few biologists who go against the grain. But you like that kind of thing, don't you? If we have figured out that light is the speed limit of matter being accelerated in the universe, and you decide that is not true but have nothing but your gut feelings about it, how do you expect mainstream science to react? I think they would say, show me the money. Not just say, wake up and smell the coffee, give us something real we can taste and measure. We can measure the fossil record, it tells a convincing story to thousands of scientists. If a handful disregards it all on the basis of a story in the bible, however they wish to evade that basic truth of it, and try to call it science, what do you expect real scientists to say? 'Oh, you were right all along, we'll just have to disregard 200 years of evidence and fall over and worship the lord'?
sigh...., there is no such thing as a general consensus and what are the alternatives, that we offer up incense to an image of Mr.Hawkins every morning, blindly accepting everything that comes our way, without questioning its validity?
Look at the hostility it engenders when someone has the audacity to claim that its fundamentally implausible th ...[text shortened]... d to look at the very same data and make their own evaluations and draw their own conclusions.