1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    10 Nov '13 02:141 edit
    Is Metamorphosis proof for evolution or intelligent design?

    Metamorphosis seems like the ultimate evolutionary magic trick - the amazing transformation of one creature into a totally different being: one life, two bodies. Is this evidence for something like the Cambrian explosion and fast evolution that does not take billions or millions of years of gradual change? The following video is from the evolutionists point of view.

    YouTube

    What about the Intelligent Design point of view?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_irreducible_complexity_of052461.html

    http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com/

    YouTube

    From my point of view as a young earth creationist, these changes are too amazing for me to just dismiss them as part of Darwin's evolutionary process of natural selection. That just does not make sense, so I can only attribute it to a higher source that is beyond our full comprehension.

    What say you?

    The Instructor
  2. SubscriberPianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    Seedy piano bar
    Joined
    09 May '08
    Moves
    184168
    11 Nov '13 16:37
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Is Metamorphosis proof for evolution or intelligent design?

    Metamorphosis seems like the ultimate evolutionary magic trick - the amazing transformation of one creature into a totally different being: one life, two bodies. Is this evidence for something like the Cambrian explosion and fast evolution that does not take billions or millions of years ...[text shortened]... it to a higher source that is beyond our full comprehension.

    What say you?

    The Instructor[/b]
    That just does not make sense, so I can only attribute it to a higher source that is beyond our full comprehension.


    Could you admit that perhaps we do not yet have the science to understand it?
    Because it is beyond our comprehension could you agree that it does not necessarily imply a "higher source"?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    11 Nov '13 18:35
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    That just does not make sense, so I can only attribute it to a higher source that is beyond our full comprehension.


    Could you admit that perhaps we do not yet have the science to understand it?
    Because it is beyond our comprehension could you agree that it does not necessarily imply a "higher source"?
    It is clear that we do not have the knowledge (science so-called) to understand it. So why must you insist that God is not the higher source?

    The Instructor
  4. SubscriberPianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    Seedy piano bar
    Joined
    09 May '08
    Moves
    184168
    11 Nov '13 18:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is clear that we do not have the knowledge (science so-called) to understand it. So why must you insist that God is not the higher source?

    The Instructor
    You are being slightly mischievous! I am not insisting that God is not the higher source; I am simply asking you to consider the possibility that, because our scientific knowledge is not up to the task, it does not necessarily prove a higher source.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    11 Nov '13 18:52
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    You are being slightly mischievous! I am not insisting that God is not the higher source; I am simply asking you to consider the possibility that, because our scientific knowledge is not up to the task, it does not necessarily prove a higher source.
    It is just too difficult for me to imagine that God is not the source. I guess I must be the opposite of the atheist evilutionist.

    The Instructor
  6. SubscriberPianoman1
    Nil desperandum
    Seedy piano bar
    Joined
    09 May '08
    Moves
    184168
    11 Nov '13 19:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is just too difficult for me to imagine that God is not the source. I guess I must be the opposite of the atheist evilutionist.

    The Instructor
    RJH - thank you, that is the most sincere thing I have heard you say. My task is to sow a seed of doubt in your mind! It is too difficult, the science is incomprehensible, unexplainable, but you must accept the tiniest inkling of a possibility that it could have happened naturally!
  7. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93394
    11 Nov '13 19:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is just too difficult for me to imagine that God is not the source. I guess I must be the opposite of the atheist evilutionist.

    The Instructor
    the truth and knowledge of the entire universe is directly connected to what you personally can or cannot imagine......wow!!
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    11 Nov '13 23:54
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    RJH - thank you, that is the most sincere thing I have heard you say. My task is to sow a seed of doubt in your mind! It is too difficult, the science is incomprehensible, unexplainable, but you must accept the tiniest inkling of a possibility that it [b]could have happened naturally![/b]
    I don't see why I must accept an incomprehensible and unexplainable idea that metamorphosis is a natural occurrence that was not planned by a superior intelligence. All the evidence points to God who is able to confound the limited wisdom of man by His superior wisdom that is able to make fools of those claiming to be wise in the ways of the world with their so-called science.

    The Instructor
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Nov '13 00:00
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    the truth and knowledge of the entire universe is directly connected to what you personally can or cannot imagine......wow!!
    The truth and knowledge of the entire universe is directly connected with what God can imagine. My imagination is limited just like yours. I dare say that your imagination can not change anything that God has established.

    The Instructor
  10. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    12 Nov '13 01:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Is Metamorphosis proof for evolution or intelligent design?

    Metamorphosis seems like the ultimate evolutionary magic trick - the amazing transformation of one creature into a totally different being: one life, two bodies. Is this evidence for something like the Cambrian explosion and fast evolution that does not take billions or millions of years ...[text shortened]... it to a higher source that is beyond our full comprehension.

    What say you?

    The Instructor[/b]
    Have you tried studying any reputable, peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic? Maybe you could try this one for starters:

    The Origins of Insect Metamorphosis, Truman and Riddiford, NATURE, Volume 401, 1999.
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148425
    12 Nov '13 02:41
    Originally posted by Pianoman1
    You are being slightly mischievous! I am not insisting that God is not the higher source; I am simply asking you to consider the possibility that, because our scientific knowledge is not up to the task, it does not necessarily prove a higher source.
    That is a point I have made with evolution too, disproving evolution does
    not prove God created anything. I guess when people get so dug into their
    mindset they don't see beyond it.
    Kelly
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Nov '13 02:50
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    Have you tried studying any reputable, peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic? Maybe you could try this one for starters:

    The Origins of Insect Metamorphosis, Truman and Riddiford, NATURE, Volume 401, 1999.
    To come up with an hypothesis is easy. However, this hypothesis does not really explain how metamorphosis could have evolved.

    The Instructor
  13. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    12 Nov '13 03:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    To come up with an hypothesis is easy. However, this hypothesis does not really explain how metamorphosis could have evolved.

    The Instructor
    How so, exactly?
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    12 Nov '13 03:59
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    How so, exactly?
    Well, it just does not explain it exactly. That is why they call it an hypothesis, because it is just a guess.

    The Instructor
  15. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    12 Nov '13 18:48
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, it just does not explain it exactly. That is why they call it an hypothesis, because it is just a guess.

    The Instructor
    Well, sorry, but that is in part how scientific method works. Has no one ever explained this to you? One makes an explanatory hypothesis for observed phenomena and then tests it in various ways to see if it should be retained or rejected or amended as needed, etc. One also communicates it to the scientific community at large to see if it survives healthy scrutiny, too.

    At least their "guess" is an educated one and has some evidential backing. I'm not sure we can say the same for yours....
Back to Top