Did God Design the Human Brain or Did It Just Happen?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pardon me. I thought science fiction was truth mixed with fairy tales
and a lot of imagination just like the theory of evolution.

Fairy tales that have the support of science I'll take any day over fairy tales written in some dusty old book claimed to be written by some hirsute sky fairy.

Originally posted by amannion
Fairy tales that have the support of science I'll take any day over fairy tales written in some dusty old book claimed to be written by some hirsute sky fairy.

What is a hirsute sky fairy? Seriously, if you acknowledge there are plenty of
fairy tales to go around, the only thing that separates yours from the next guys
is a personal choice nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What is a hirsute sky fairy? Seriously, if you acknowledge there are plenty of
fairy tales to go around, the only thing that separates yours from the next guys
is a personal choice nothing more.
Kelly

Sorry, my (obviously) poor effort to be humourous. I was referring to your bearded dude up above us somewhere.
I suppose it's a personal choice as to which story you support. I just choose the one that has the overwhelming evidence and requires faith in nothing more than evidence, reasoning and logic. You choose differently, based on ...?

Originally posted by amannion
Sorry, my (obviously) poor effort to be humourous. I was referring to your bearded dude up above us somewhere.
I suppose it's a personal choice as to which story you support. I just choose the one that has the overwhelming evidence and requires faith in nothing more than evidence, reasoning and logic. You choose differently, based on ...?

Does the bearded dude up above somewhere refer to Jesus the Christ,
the only begotten Son of God?

Originally posted by RJHinds
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.

You are sounding like Dasa. You say the bible is the most credible book ever written. He says the Vedanta is the most credible book ever written. Who is correct?

Originally posted by amannion
Sorry, my (obviously) poor effort to be humourous. I was referring to your bearded dude up above us somewhere.
I suppose it's a personal choice as to which story you support. I just choose the one that has the overwhelming evidence and requires faith in nothing more than evidence, reasoning and logic. You choose differently, based on ...?

Here is a link giving the scientific evidence agaist evolution, with\reasoning and logic:
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is a link giving the scientific evidence agaist evolution, with\reasoning and logic:
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

For starters, this is incorrect:

Cellular Evolution - At some point, non-living matter supposedly became living, forming cells that could reproduce

Cellular evolution does not suggest that. The cells evolved into existence long after abiogenesis.

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself or has it always existed

Dr John Lennox is a mathematician, not a theoretical physicist. Hawking takes into account quantum theory and other dimensions when talking about matter coming from "nothing". In this context, it is easier for the layperson to understand. "Nothing" isn't really nothing as we all perceive it.

Also this page misinterprets the laws of thermodynamics.

EVIDENCE 2: Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

This is subjective. The person who wrote this site has only speculated that living things arise only from non-living things because that is what he/she is used to in every day life. That biological text book it references is speculating the same way.

I could go on about the missing links, etc, but they have all been refuted many times. There is a lot of pseudo-science on this page.

Originally posted by amannion
I don't think I said one hemisphere takes up the functions of the other, those are your words. I'm not sure about the division of the brain's hemispheres.
What I think I did say was that different regions of the brain can take over functionality from damaged regions.
I think we get too hung up on the fact that there are specific parts of the brain that ha ...[text shortened]... amage simply shows that - a neuron is a neuron is a neuron. Certainly no need for two brains.

Well the fact is that the human brain has 2 hemispheres each with specialised functions yet one hemisphere takes over tasks of the other one,if that one is damaged. My question is what is the evidence for this being an adapted characteristic?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is a link giving the scientific evidence agaist evolution, with\reasoning and logic:
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

I am curious. Have you actually read the information given on that website?
Do you seriously believe it to be scientific?
Do you understand it enough to be able to say you agree with it?
If yes to the above three, would you be interested in discussing each of the numbered claims given? I have read it, and believe each of the listed items of evidence is flawed. I believe I can convince you of this fact for each item.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious. Have you actually read the information given on that website?
Do you seriously believe it to be scientific?
Do you understand it enough to be able to say you agree with it?
If yes to the above three, would you be interested in discussing each of the numbered claims given? I have read it, and believe each of the listed items of evidence is flawed. I believe I can convince you of this fact for each item.

No I have not actually read it. I found it through Google.
It is mainly a reply to the nonsense links, that I was given
that was supposed to be evidence of macro evolution, but
turned out to be a bunch of crap that I wasted my time
reading. Two can play that game.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No I have not actually read it. I found it through Google.
It is mainly a reply to the nonsense links, that I was given
that was supposed to be evidence of macro evolution, but
turned out to be a bunch of crap that I wasted my time
reading. Two can play that game.

So you are trying to refute crap with more crap?

Originally posted by lausey
So you are trying to refute crap with more crap?

Yes, it you want to put it that way. But this crap was short and
to the point and at least doesn't waste a lot of time reading it.
So I think this crap is better than the other crap. So, in my
opinion, the other crap is refuted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, it you want to put it that way. But this crap was short and
to the point and at least doesn't waste a lot of time reading it.
So I think this crap is better than the other crap. So, in my
opinion, the other crap is refuted.

In my experience, there is pseudo-science in "evidence" to support evolution (in cases where people do not understand it very well, but try to explain it anyway), but plenty of proper science to support it.

As for evidence in refutation of evolution, it has ALWAYS contained pseudo-science.

I personally will look for proper science to refute it. It doesn't make sense to attempt to refute crap with more crap, it is not possible.

There are many thousands of experiments that has been done under strict scientific conditions which will only work if evolution works. It fits so well it sounds too good to be true.

The only documentation that I have read which attempts to refute it is cherry picked misinterpreted data. They do not even compliment each other.

Unfortunately in cases where people support evolution but do not understand it very well, and explain it badly, this is picked up upon by anti-evolutionists as "evidence" that evolution is wrong.

Originally posted by lausey
In my experience, there is pseudo-science in "evidence" to support evolution (in cases where people do not understand it very well, but try to explain it anyway), but plenty of proper science to support it.

As for evidence in refutation of evolution, it has ALWAYS contained pseudo-science.

I personally will look for proper science to refute it. It doesn ...[text shortened]... badly, this is picked up upon by anti-evolutionists as "evidence" that evolution is wrong.

Well, said. But do you personally think we will ever see
man turn a lobster into a fruit fly?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, said. But do you personally think we will ever see
man turn a lobster into a fruit fly?

Why would a man want to?