Science vs. Creationism

[♪alt13]

Negative! The human body illustrates this. Its organs are always found in the same location, and all of the external body members are arranged symmetrically. Imagine the chaos in the practice of medicine, and especially surgery, if a person’s appendix could not be counted upon to be in the same place as that of others! What if one’s legs were customarily of differing lengths? However, this is not the case. A designer with the authority to do so has already standardized our bodies for us. The Bible psalmist David said in admiration: “And in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Ps. 139:14-16)

Since anecdotal evidence is more relevant here(for some backward *** reason) I can tell you that my grandmother had 4 kidneys. I guess you'll respond that her two extra kidneys were right where they were supposed to be. lol

 

[carolinajazz]

I just love how one religious person is treating other religious person. You sure seem to follow Bible's recommendations about treating others well and with respect.

....yeah, I was off base. Shouldn't have lost my temper! I apologize to dalamon.

 

[carolinajazz]

I can tell you that my grandmother had 4 kidneys. I guess you'll respond that her two extra kidneys were right where they were supposed to be. lol

....probably one of those 1 in a 1,000,000 "beneficial mutations!" She was about to evolve into a Dilophosaurus!

 

[Deleted member 848]

.....huh? You are one stupid dumb a$$ pseudo-intellectual college puke....that's all I got to say! Exactly how much marijuana did you actually smoke in school??? I suspect nobody can get any right now.....because you must have smoked all of it!!!

I've never smoked marijuana a single time in my entire life. I don't drink alcohol either.

Try again.

 

[moevillini]

y'all ought to take a field trip to chicago and see this, sounds interesting!

https://www.theatreinchicago.com/in-the-garden-a-darwinian-love-story/6317/

“In the Garden: A Darwinian Love Story”

Lookingglass Theatre
821 N Michigan Ave Chicago

Long before The Origin of Species will forever change the world, Charles Darwin meets Emma Wedgewood and they forever change each other. In the space between science and faith, they find an unexpected and unlikely romance. In the Garden chronicles the struggle of two fiercely independent individuals, divided by ideology but united by a fire that fuels a passionate lifelong debate: evolution vs. salvation. Only by embracing this duality can they possibly navigate the struggles, triumphs, losses and discoveries that await.

some reviews...

Chicago Tribune - Somewhat Recommended

"...All in all, and I've saved this for last, the chief asset of "In the Garden" is Andrew White, whose performance as Darwin deftly captures the idea of the reluctant revolutionary, the self-doubting, publicity-averse scientist who just wanted to find evidence and apply potential proofs and who did not really want to get into the idea of God at all, although he of course had no choice. This is a very wise, kind and fundamentally generous performance; White lets Spence, whose performance is bolder and broader, take much of the focus, which creates a dynamic interesting, honest and thankfully, unexpected."

Chicago Reader - Somewhat Recommended

"...Gmitter and Thebus do try. They pack the evening with lots of biblical symbols. The play begins with a young girl haltingly reading the first few lines from the King James version of the Book of Genesis ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth . . . "), followed by a brief scene in which a young Darwin observes the animals in his garden before being interrupted by a young girl (Emma) who enters and distracts him. Clearly he is supposed to be Adam and she Eve. But what is Eden? Their innocent childhood? The uncomplicated world before Darwin's theories shook us out of our dogmatic slumber?"

ChicagoCritic - Highly Recommended

"...In the Garden is a worthy play that combines the story of a world changing scientist who was able to maintain a romance with his wife despite their religious differences. In the Victorian Era, as today, that is hard to deal with. This work is intellectually stimulating yet wholesomely a romantic love story and a fine family drama. The powerful test of the family resolve with Anna's illness is a heart wrenching testimony to family love. In the Garden is a wonderful drama that begs to be seen."

https://blog.conciergepreferred.com/chicago/inside-garden-darwinian-love-story/

The play would’ve failed if you found yourself siding with Darwin because you believe in his science or Emma because you believe in creation. It is Sara Gmitter’s writing and Andrew White and Rebecca Spence’s acting that can make those who might’ve come in with strong convictions begin to understand the other side. White plays Darwin’s curiosity and fervor for science so well that it makes you want to leave the theatre and write observations in red notebooks as Darwin had done. Spence’s portrayal of Emma might be the standout as few people know about Emma’s life, and her support of her husband while having differing ideals is something to be admired. The acting was so good that the majority of the audience was sniffling and grabbing tissue so audibly that it even became a distraction for me.

The performance is definitely a must see for all audiences no matter your beliefs because it is probably one of the greatest love stories that we can all learn from.

 

[MVP]

....yeah, I was off base. Shouldn't have lost my temper! I apologize to dalamon.

 

[MVP]

Arguing with creationists sometimes reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcPfWt0l0V8

 

[PearlWatson]

....probably one of those 1 in a 1,000,000 "beneficial mutations!" She was about to evolve into a Dilophosaurus!

lolz

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Arguing with creationists sometimes reminds me of this

So do you see yourself as the one that thinks it's a log, or the one that gets eaten to prove it's a croc?

 

[MVP]

So do you see yourself as the one that thinks it's a log, or the one that gets eaten to prove it's a croc?

Do you see name of the video? You should know what I think about creationists.

 

[PearlWatson]

1)in your mind, perhaps. Try and stretch that imagination of yours, dear.
2)I am not a practitioner of medicine.
3)It would only hurt my feelings if you could prove it, dear. Please, find an example of a post of mix being off-based, and describe why in that context your chosen Geneticist has a higher knowledge than myself.
Simply saying "he has a higher knowledge than you JUST BECAUSE" is not convincing in the least of senses. This isn't me being over myself-- how about you get over yourself, and provide actual justification behind your claims instead of spouting off your baseless, empty assertions as fact.
4)Wrong. "maybe both cogs were created before the sophisticated circulation system was developed. Maybe the cog served an alternative function (at a less efficient rate) upon its creation, but it ended up being best suited for its eventual role."
5)Again, you selectively quote an excerpt from my post, and ignore how that this co-theory can be debunked. Your tactics are pathetic, your justifications are embarrassing, and your blinders are on full-blast.

6)I'm done with this conversation. I hope you've enjoyed making a fool of yourself, and not providing a single concerted defense against any of the scientific 'data' that you've proposed-- "well he has a PhD so he MUST know more than you Dalamon!!1!!1!" doesn't count as a legitimate defense, btw. Pathetic. Hopeless. There's a reason that your posts will never gain traction amongst the many, or provide any enlightenment to posters on here.

Enjoy that feeling of being schooled by a 20 year old. Tschüss.

6) lolz. That was quite the amusing tantrum. I tell you to get over yourself and in the very next response you quit and declare yourself the winner. You amuse me.

1) I can't read your mind on what you mean by "design overall." That is something that you would have to explain to me. How is "design overall" different than what you imagine the "intelligent design" movement is trying to articulate?

2)I know you ain't a doctor. I assumed you were pursuing the goal to be one in the future, when I made that statement. I used the word "ultimately" for that reason. Ultimately means "in the end"...of your studies.

3)I ain't ever going to assume a student has more knowledge than the teacher. It is unreasonable of you to expect that of me. Of course if they teach you faulty information, or teach speculations as facts, then both of your "knowledge" is useless or limited in value.

4)I don't understand how you envision either of your speculative scenarios* playing out. How can the cogs responsible for keeping a creature alive develop outside the system it is a part of, unless an intelligence is involved? The pieces of a car are designed and manufactured before they are put together, but a live creature can't spontaneously generate pieces in succession that must work in unison. Your scenarios just don't logically make sense to me. Maybe you could articulate how something like that works but I'm guessing you don't have the capacity to explain that in a way that makes sense.

*Your speculative scenarios: "maybe both cogs were created before the sophisticated circulation system was developed. Maybe the cog served an alternative function (at a less efficient rate) upon its creation, but it ended up being best suited for its eventual role."

5) Your use of "co-theory" is a positive sign.

 

[moevillini]

LOL!!

So do you see yourself as the one that thinks it's a log, or the one that gets eaten to prove it's a croc?

Do you see name of the video? You should know what I think about creationists.

I think the key is that the wrong thinking beast changed his mind when faced with evidence that he was wrong!