Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well...humans survive MUCH MUCH MUCH better than any primate on earth, than any vertabrate ever has.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
Well...humans survive MUCH MUCH MUCH better than any primate on earth, than any vertabrate ever has.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Explain for me the evidence for intelligent design. The last few pages have been all about evolution. How I am ever to know the truth if you will not present it to me. Please blow my mind.
MVP
Well-Known Member
They don't say that fish bladder turned into human lung period. That is absolutely ridiculous.
And you did not answer about how it feels believing that you were once created from man's rib.
MVP
Well-Known Member
lol, Behe, Dembski, Ham and similar "scientists" tried already only to be destroyed in all debates ( and in all law courts ) by real scientists like Krauss, Nye or Dawkins. Heck Behe even agrees with almost all evolution theory except random mutation where he thinks it is "guided mutation" by intelligent designer ( God).
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
MVP
Well-Known Member
Don't see anywhere human lung mentioned.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
ID scientist use the same data (fossil record, biological systems) and come up with different conclusions with information theory, mathematics and religious mumbojumbo like that. I already had my fun delving into Dembski's theory on One Brow's evolution thread.
I don't know the truth to the question of whether all life shares a common ancestor, I just find it highly implausible that if this is the truth that random mutations is the mechanism that led to all the complex coordinated life systems that exist. The jumps from non vertebrae to vertebrae and asexual to sexual reproduction are the most problematic for a Darwinist to explain without sounding completely ridiculous to me.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
"Also how did lungs evolve???" ~Zulu
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Invertebrate to vertebrate, what's the problem? There are living invertebrates that have a nerve chord without bone. Sharks are an example of what we might call a primitive vertebrate that have cartilage instead of bone. Where is the mystery?
https://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/?page=24.25.312.314
Authoritarianism and Science have had a bad marriage throughout history. Science is really only science when someone asks a nonconforming question and starts making the case against something that everyone thought was "true". The rest of the time, scientists laboring in the fields of specialty are more like priests copying the dogmatic texts of tradition, fashioning ever and ever more masses of dogma. . . . .
So I don't doubt that things change, and will change across time well beyond my powers of projection. And I don't think it takes a single point of Life to speak the word and "create" everything. I think every aspect of "life" is inherent in the whole wide universe, and where ever there is cognition there is a potential for action that may reflect some kind of "intelligence". I won't call this principle "God", though, and I think "God" has hung ten on this wave for a good long while, and that others have gone before Him doing as much in their own time. . . . and many more will do as much in time to come. . . . .
The dogma of "evolution" as a repudiation of a traditional view of "God" is a denial of the human capacity for intelligence, as well as a denial that anything else is intelligent. It might be true of the people who believe this stupid dogma and use it justify their pride and arrogance like a club for beating down the little old "church ladies" who have tried to teach them to be "good boys" or "good girls". . . . but truly I can't even stomach making a joke about them because it is just that horrific that people want so badly to justify their disbelief they will attack the very basis of scientific investigation to do so.
Not even an Amoeba is without intelligence and choice or the power to act to preserve and propagate "life", and is therefore an illustration of "intelligent design" in it's own actions within its own scope of life.
As the Bible says, all things demonstrate the reality of God.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Nah babe. Science is following the evidence wherever it may lead. It's about trying to discover the truth. What you describe as real science is having an agenda and being dogmatic. You cannot ignore evidence and expect to be taken seriously. You cannot supplant data and observation with tales of watches and religious stories and call it science. That is dogmatic.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Still can't see human in there. Remember what you posted - fish bladder to human lung. Only creationist would post such nonsense.
Fish evolved into amphibians to remind you. See beautiful picture of living fossil I posted in this thread, the one who still has gills and already lungs as well.
MVP
Well-Known Member
As we already talked Bible is just a fairy tale book for adults. It is up to every person to chose to believe it or not. But it is not science. It is collections of tales and myths written thousands of years ago in dark ages by uneducated shepherds who believed that Earth is center of the world, is flat and Sun orbits it. It has same value as Greek mythology, Nordic pagan legends, etc, etc.
And amoeba is nothing but primitive protozoan without any intelligence and in no way is any kind of proof of "intelligent design".
The mere fact that there is so many mutations in the animal kingdom ( including humans ) denies any kind of intelligence. Don't you think your intelligent designer would have made sure that Down Syndrome, Siamese Twins, Werners syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Niemann-Pick Disease, Cystic Fibrosis and other devastating genetic conditions would not happen? Maybe wasn't that intelligent at the end of the day lol.
That ain't 0.14%. Add another 9.
P.S. I have no idea if the 0.14% statistic is correct. I'm just here to check the math.
MVP
Well-Known Member
But you accept woman being made from man's rib as perfectly "not ridiculous" way of creation
MVP
Well-Known Member
thanks, makes my point even more valid. 14 vs 9986.
Precisely. That's why I added the caveat that I didn't know if you number was correct. But if it is, it does make your point that much more valid.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
The human brain is responsible for the yawning abyss that exists between even the most intelligent animal and an average human. As professors of human biology Drs. Ornstein and Thompson wrote in The Amazing Brain: “The ability of the human mind to learn—to store and recall information—is the most remarkable phenomenon in the biological universe. Everything that makes us human—language, thought, knowledge, culture—is the result of this extraordinary capability.”
Now, if this insight into the brain truly impresses you, should you not at least consider the possibility that an intelligent Designer and Creator is responsible for this complex organ? The Bible writer and lawyer Paul reasoned this way: “For all that may be known of God by men lies plain before their eyes .*.*. His invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.”—Romans 1:19, 20, The New English Bible.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The Bible was written by mere mortals and in some ways does reflect some of the beliefs and attitudes of the people of those times, but you insist on being blind to the things in the Bible that defy your simple prejudices, just like you refuse to understand what I actually said and insist on arguing with your own straw man notions. Your logic fails.
If you start with a belief in no God and no principle of action but atoms and molecules governed by simple forces/energies/fields like electricity, magnitism, gravity and such, believing that this is enough to explain everything in the universe, you are a priest in your own right, holding forth a dogma that admits of no challenge from anything else.
You are the exact same thing in this as a priest who has never questioned his religious definitions and principles, and will admit of no possible randomness in creation. I don't deny that a lot of different processes are happening, including unplanned or random events, I say that living things exert a sort of life force on the fabric of their existence, and do some things that can't be explained by accidents of nature. Even amoeba do this in some ways.
The scientists you use as a crutch of denial routinely do just what I am claiming all life does at some level of organization, in effect "playing god" as they use specific knowledge to exert intentioned effects on living things. Some folks wouldn't think an amoeba has "intelligence" and would attribute responses to chemicals binding on cellular membranes and such, and would presume that such simple cells survive changes in their environment on a merely statistical distribution of properties, ignoring some bizarre and seldom-considered "actions" that can be compared to "communication" with other cells, photo-electric phenomena that at first glance would not have any purpose at all.
I'm not getting these kinds of ideas out of the Bible, but from a soviet scientist of the past generation, who developed a godless sort of "life force" idea, imputing to living things the power to create conditions favorable to life and the power to create new capacities for survival. . . .
I simply combine his scientific observations with the notion that of course, if there is a being, or class of beings "like humans" that has existed for any length of time, of course we should expect to see the effects of design and purposed changes all through the history of life.
We have the capacity to tilt the table of statistics and promote things we care to develop in living things. Why would you presume we are the first to ever do so? And such power is in essence the kernel concept of "God" or "Creator".
Your religion is to deny the possible existence of someone like yourself, who has existed before you. I am simply trying to point out how absurd your dogma is.