What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

@pearl you only asked how lungs evolved... Not how Human lungs evolved! Evolution is all about a step by step process...

@CJ evolution is not about creating the perfect organism... It's about selecting the traits best fit for the current environment... Take the human eye very complex but look at a squids eye more advanced(no blind spot), but most would say that humans are more advanced, nope they are just more suited for their environment!!!
 
babe said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no straw man in my post. The straw man is you trying to equate my atheism with my position on evolution.

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.
Click to expand...

So I am a dogmatic priest because I choose not to believe in something you cannot prove? Prove it, and I will believe. If I get polemical about anything it is a repudiation of the bible not god. To be clear: Noah silly, Genesis silly, Leviticus and Deuteronomy immoral barbarous garbage, virgin birth silly, resurrection silly. None of that is a denial of god just the "good book".

As for god. I don't see the logic in it. Why does it make sense that the universe was created by something more complex than the universe itself? Where did god come from? I do not know(and neither do you)what happened before the known universe. Will I ever know, probably not. Will humanity ever know, maybe.
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.
Click to expand...
It is a crutch of denial for me to accept grade school biology? Would it not be extremely arrogant of me to disregard all the fossils that have been gathered, all the genetic samples taken, and all the microscopes peered through in favor of my own opinion?

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.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage here. I do not know of the Soviet that you are referring to and so it would be unfair for me to comment on him/her. A name or a link would help.

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".
Click to expand...

I simply choose not to anthropomorphize nature.

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.
Click to expand...
Yes and failing quite horribly to do so.
 
PearlWatson said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

It's not "the" mechanism, it's one of a couple dozen mechanisms.

PearlWatson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which part of the vertebra development is difficult? Centralizing neurons into a single cord? The gradual formation of a bony shell around the cord?

Why is it difficult to believe that the two processes of replication and syzygy merged into one process?
 
babe said:
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.
Click to expand...

For a certain, metaphorical sense of intelligence, I agree.
 
carolinajazz said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, we should consider the possibility. However, upon examining the evidence, the possibility is rejected. The brain has too many foibles and too much jury-rigging to be the product of any designer.
 
babe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Accidents of nature is not enough, but accidents of nature interacting with the necessities of nature is sufficient.

babe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Scientists don't ignore these phenomena, they study them.

babe said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because we have no reliable evidence otherwise. My assumption is provisional, open to further evidence.
 
Zulu said:
@pearl you only asked how lungs evolved... Not how Human lungs evolved! Evolution is all about a step by step process...
Click to expand...

I didn't realize I asked how lungs evolved, but I do know that Darwinists believe humans came from fish in a step by step process. If you believe initial lungs came from fish bladder so too did human lungs. I didn't think this was a concept Darwinists would have a problem with.
 
PearlWatson said:
I didn't realize I asked how lungs evolved, but I do know that Darwinists believe humans came from fish in a step by step process. If you believe initial lungs came from fish bladder so too did human lungs. I didn't think this was a concept Darwinists would have a problem with.
Click to expand...

Yes, fish swim bladder, evolved into primitive amphibian lungs, which evolved into diapsid lungs, then synapsids lungs, then rodent like lungs, then lemur like lungs, then ape like lungs and then modern human lungs.... And this process only took about 370 million years!!!
 
Zulu said:
Yes, fish swim bladder, evolved into primitive amphibian lungs, which evolved into diapsid lungs, then synapsids lungs, then rodent like lungs, then lemur like lungs, then ape like lungs and then modern human lungs.... And this process only took about 370 million years!!!
Click to expand...

if you say so
 
PearlWatson said:
if you say so
Click to expand...

I don't say so.... But the evidence points to this!!! If better evidence comes along and can stand the scrutiny of the scientific method then that is what I will believe...

That's the awesome thing about science it is constantly being challenged to better our understanding!!
 
Zulu said:
I don't say so.... But the evidence points to this!!! If better evidence comes along and can stand the scrutiny of the scientific method then that is what I will believe...

That's the awesome thing about science it is constantly being challenged to better our understanding!!
Click to expand...

You just got through saying so, and you probably preach it all the time.

Like the Ken bloke in the debate said, there is observation/experimental science and then there is historical science (beliefs/assumptions about the past).

You can observe different kinds of fishes.
You can observe different kinds of amphibians.
You can observe different kinds of rodents.
You can observe different kinds of apes.
You can observe different kinds of humans.
But to say one led to another is a belief system in which the scientific method cannot be applied.
The capacity to draw a diagram and come up with a story about how things might have happened is not science.
 
AKMVP said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should know the Biblical reason for suffering, disease and death if you read the bible as a kid. Of course who knows what was in your version. Maybe the interpreter jacked it all up. lol.
 
I watched Ken Ham's part of the debate. There was an interesting thing he said in regards to the age of the Earth at 2:19:44

He said, "I really challenge Christians, if you are going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record you have problems with the Bible and that is then you have to have death, disease, and suffering before sin."

What do you Mormons/Christians think of this "challenge?"
 
PearlWatson said:
You should know the Biblical reason for suffering, disease and death if you read the bible as a kid. Of course who knows what was in your version. Maybe the interpreter jacked it all up. lol.
Click to expand...

What is biblical reason for genetic mutations, disease, suffering and death in fish, birds, dogs, bananas and mushrooms for example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top