Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

... 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.

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

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.

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?

 

[One Brow]

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.

For a certain, metaphorical sense of intelligence, I agree.

 

[One Brow]

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?

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Because we have no reliable evidence otherwise. My assumption is provisional, open to further evidence.

 

[PearlWatson]

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

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.

 

[Zulu]

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.

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!!!

 

[PearlWatson]

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!!!

if you say so

 

[Zulu]

if you say so

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!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

if you say so

You're getting clowned.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[PearlWatson]

You're getting clowned.

Sometimes I just get bored of the rehash of the same old flimsy stories and vague terms like "the evidence."

 

[PearlWatson]

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!!

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.

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

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.