Originally posted by RJHindsOf course there's evidence of design. There's evidence of design all through our bodies - every bit of it looks like it was designed for something. But this doesn't require therefore that it was.
It is my opinion, any reasonable person could see that the computer
is a complex machine that functions in a certain way for a certain purpose.
He would not say that certain forces, like gravity or the wind, somehow
formed it. He would say somebody made this computer but I don't know
who. Man is even more complex than a computer, yet some people don't ...[text shortened]... think they know that forces put him together.
They somehow see no evidence of design at all.
Evolution by natural selection is simply an attempt to explain how this 'design' came to be. It works pretty well, even with something as complex as a human brain, to see how this could develop over long periods of time, from simpler forms and simpler configurations.
Is it a true account of the development of life on earth? Maybe.
It works as a scientific account that's for sure, but it's entirely contingent on evidence to support it.
If evidence is found that does not support it, then we must move on.
Do you ahve any such evidence?
Your god is simply a fairy story - believe it if you care to, but it isn't science.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWe have the Holy Bible as evidence that God made man.
“...He would not say that certain forces, like gravity or the wind, somehow
formed it. ...”
that, at least in part, is because he knows that there is EVIDENCE that PEOPLE formed it and that would surely imply that gravity, wind etc didn't “somehow formed it”?
In contrast, here is NO evidence that a god or some other kind of intelligence formed ...[text shortened]... m and that “WHAT” is not a “WHO” but is evolution (which is also proven to have happened ) .
It was written thousand of years ago and is the most credible
book ever written. It has never been proven wrong.
There is no proof that evolution ever created or made anything.
Any honest scientist will tell you that. It is only speculation that
started about 200 years ago.
Originally posted by amannionThe God of the Holy Bible is the true and living God.
Of course there's evidence of design. There's evidence of design all through our bodies - every bit of it looks like it was designed for something. But this doesn't require therefore that it was.
Evolution by natural selection is simply an attempt to explain how this 'design' came to be. It works pretty well, even with something as complex as a human brain ...[text shortened]... ce?
Your god is simply a fairy story - believe it if you care to, but it isn't science.
He is able to tell the end from the beginning. All the prophecies,
in the Holy Bible, that have come true proves that.
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, you may be right. But it still isn't a scientific explanation - I can't disprove it, I can't judge it against existing evidence, I can't experiment with it.
The God of the Holy Bible is the true and living God.
He is able to tell the end from the beginning. All the prophecies,
in the Holy Bible, that have come true proves that.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...We have the Holy Bible as evidence that God made man. ...”
We have the Holy Bible as evidence that God made man.
It was written thousand of years ago and is the most credible
book ever written. It has never been proven wrong.
There is no proof that evolution ever created or made anything.
Any honest scientist will tell you that. It is only speculation that
started about 200 years ago.
a mere book is not “evidence”. Where is the evidence that everything it says is true?
“...It was written thousand of years ago ...”
yes, by PEOPLE, not by a god.
“...and is the most credible
book ever written. ...”
“credible” using which criteria?
“...It has never been proven wrong. ...”
it has never been proven wrong that there is a teacup orbiting Mars. Believing that something could credibly be right on the bases of it have not ever been proven wrong would be folly.
“...There is no proof that evolution ever created or made anything. ...”
False: I have already given you in many other posts many links proving that evolution has evidence and proof on its side.
“...Any honest scientist will tell you that. ...”
No, only a stupid 'scientist' would tell you that.
“...It is only speculation that
started about 200 years ago. ...”
a proven scientific fact is not “ speculation”.
Originally posted by amannionHuman brain ,as everyone acquainted with physiology at high school level knows,is comprised of two hemispheres -right and left- with specialisation of functions. Right brain is better at visualising,physical activities like dancing,swimming,running etc.,deals with emotions like sadness( but not happiness), all artistic activities like painting etc,poetry and importantly is possessing Intuitive faculty.Left brain is good at mathematics,words,logic( but no intuition), the emotion of happiness etc. Is there any scientific evidence whether this specialisation of functions in human brain has evolved as an adaptive feature and if so, what purpose this feature serves ? Again it is also known that one hemisphere can LEARN the functions of the other hemisphere-slowly no doubt-if that hemisphere is damaged. Is there any scientific evidence that this is also an adaptive feature and if so ,why ?
Of course there's evidence of design. There's evidence of design all through our bodies - every bit of it looks like it was designed for something. But this doesn't require therefore that it was.
Evolution by natural selection is simply an attempt to explain how this 'design' came to be. It works pretty well, even with something as complex as a human brain ...[text shortened]... ce?
Your god is simply a fairy story - believe it if you care to, but it isn't science.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd it is my opinion that that is not true. Most people do know that computers were made by people, but if you didn't you might not immediately draw that conclusion.
It is my opinion, any reasonable person could see that the computer
is a complex machine that functions in a certain way for a certain purpose.
What would most peoples conclusions be regarding a waterfall? It is complex. It functions in a certain way. Why do you think the conclusion would differ? Why does your logic not apply to the waterfall?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, your right. The idea of the waterfall must have come from God.
And it is my opinion that that is not true. Most people do know that computers were made by people, but if you didn't you might not immediately draw that conclusion.
What would most peoples conclusions be regarding a waterfall? It is complex. It functions in a certain way. Why do you think the conclusion would differ? Why does your logic not apply to the waterfall?
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI'm not sure about evidence of left-right brain specialisation, but I would've thought that the fact that the brain can shift functionality to other areas when damage occurs is evidence in itself of an adaptive feature.
Human brain ,as everyone acquainted with physiology at high school level knows,is comprised of two hemispheres -right and left- with specialisation of functions. Right brain is better at visualising,physical activities like dancing,swimming,running etc.,deals with emotions like sadness( but not happiness), all artistic activities like painting etc,poetry ...[text shortened]... damaged. Is there any scientific evidence that this is also an adaptive feature and if so ,why ?
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you have no actual argument. You simply believe that all complex things are evidence of intelligent design. But what exactly are you claiming? That the laws of physics are evidence for intelligent design, or that the waterfall and brain cannot arise via the laws of physics alone?
Yes, your right. The idea of the waterfall must have come from God.
If you are claiming the latter then please also add the example of an electron combining with a proton to form an atom. Does this happen purely under the laws of physics or is it evidence of intelligent design?