Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Oh definitely perfection. . . a perfect killing machine for that poor little field mouse.
So was the mouse just "designed" as fodder...or had it offended in some way?

When humans were kicked out of the garden and rulership of the world was handed over to the 'god' they chose to obey, no one really knows how much of an influence it had on creatures other than humans. Up until the flood humans were vegetarians and so were the animals. Only after the flood were humans given permission to eat flesh. Perhaps with the water canopy gone and the increase in radiation from the sun, both humans and some animals needed extra protein in their diet? No one knows for sure....all we know is what the Bible tells us about the future when paradise conditions are restored to the earth.

Under the rulership of God's appointed King, this is what Isaiah prophesied....
Isaiah 11:6-9
"The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb,
And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,
And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7 The cow and the bear will feed together,
And their young will lie down together.
The lion will eat straw like the bull.
8 The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra,
And a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake.
9 They will not cause any harm
Or any ruin in all my holy mountain,
Because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah
As the waters cover the sea."

Isaiah 65:21-25:
They will build houses and live in them,
And they will plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.
22 They will not build for someone else to inhabit,
Nor will they plant for others to eat.
For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree,
And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.
23 They will not toil for nothing,
Nor will they bear children for distress,
Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah,
And their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call out, I will answer;
While they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
The lion will eat straw just like the bull,
And the serpent’s food will be dust.
They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” says Jehovah.

So there will be 'no harm or ruin' done to, or by any creature in the world to come.
You don't have to believe it.....but I do.

 

[Deeje]

Accident of nature, clearly not, a wonderful example of the power of natural selection? Clearly. Is there anything more exquisitely designed? No, but then every other living creature is every bit as exquisitely designed ... for other purposes.

"Design" means "do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind" How do the blind forces of evolution "plan" to execute a a "design" with a "specific purpose in mind" with no intelligent mind to direct it? Please explain.

You have way better imagination than me, apparently....but then all evolutionists must have vivid imagination to fill in the gaping holes in their theory.

 

[Sapiens]

The specific purpose is access to the gene pool of succeeding generations ... no intelligent mind required to direct it.

The repetitiveness of your questions and your unwillingness to engage the issues at hand is quite vexing, your spending a week or so on IGNORE will do me good.

 

[Deeje]

The specific purpose is access to the gene pool of succeeding generations ... no intelligent mind required to direct it.

The repetitiveness of your questions and your unwillingness to engage the issues at hand is quite vexing, your spending a week or so on IGNORE will do me good.

If it will make you feel better....

 

[Olinda]

When humans were kicked out of the garden and rulership of the world was handed over to the 'god' they chose to obey, no one really knows how much of an influence it had on creatures other than humans. Up until the flood humans were vegetarians and so were the animals. Only after the flood were humans given permission to eat flesh. Perhaps with the water canopy gone and the increase in radiation from the sun, both humans and some animals needed extra protein in their diet? No one knows for sure....all we know is what the Bible tells us about the future when paradise conditions are restored to the earth.

@Deeje , how many times have you derided "science" for using uncertain terminology? I mean, such as 'could have', might lead to' etc??
Yet with these gaping holes in your own "theory", you have no doubts at all?
OK, I get it, @Jose Fly is right, you need to believe, nuff said.

You don't have to believe it.....but I do.

Yes, exactly, you do have to believe it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And getting this thread back on track....is there anything more exquisitely designed than a Barn Owl?

"Accident" of nature? or designed aerodynamic perfection?

OK, fine. Got it. It all looks designed to you, and on that basis, you decided it must be. Where is your argument beyond that? I've never seen one from you.

What do you say to the person who says that yes, your intuition is understandable, and that had he lived before Darwin's time, he might have been forced to agree with you for lack of any alternative to creationism, but that now that we have two hypotheses, one that requires a god and has no explanatory mechanism, and one that doesn't require a god and comes complete with an explanatory mechanism, says that the one that requires that gods exist undesigned and uncreated seems less likely?

Please give a responsive answer that specifically addresses the points made if you have one.

If you can't provide a reason to prefer a less parsimonious and to date sterile supernatural explanation over a more parsimonious naturalisitic theory that unifies observations, makes predictions that have never been empirically contradicted, and has technical applications, you won't change any minds here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have way better imagination than me, apparently....but then all evolutionists must have vivid imagination to fill in the gaping holes in their theory.

What gaping holes in the theory? The theory is airtight.

Perhaps you are confusing the specific path that evolution took with the mechanism that powered it. The precise path that man's ancestors took to reach our present form is unknown, but that isn't part of the theory. The theory ends with the mechanism - some combination of genetic and phenotypical variation acted upon by natural selection led to the advent of all modern species including man without specifying how the specific creatures that were generated by the process looked and behaved.

Thus there are no holes in the theory. The theory of biological evolution is here to stay, It cannot be upended by anything less extreme than a variation of last Thursdayism, brain in a vat, or other deceptive creator hypotheses. That's what we would be left with if evolution could be falsified. Does any of that remind you of the god of Christian Bible?

It's creationism that has the gaping holes. It has no evidence in its support, and plenty of evidence that says that the hypothesis is incorrect, including the fact that the idea cannot be used for anything constructive (it apparently can be used to grow religions). That's pretty much the sine qua non of a wrong idea.

Most of the alchemy and astrology people eventually got that message. They got tired of failing in their machinations, the astrologers not impressing others with their predictions, and the alchemists failing in their chemical transmutation efforts. That was the best indicator that their basic assumptions about reality were wrong.

ID and creationism have no better track record than astrology or alchemy, which, as I said, is powerful evidence that they are all wrong ideas.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Design" means "do or plan (something) with a specific purpose in mind" How do the blind forces of evolution "plan" to execute a a "design" with a "specific purpose in mind" with no intelligent mind to direct it? Please explain.

You have way better imagination than me, apparently....but then all evolutionists must have vivid imagination to fill in the gaping holes in their theory.

Yes, It's not difficult to make a theory work 'in theory' when you are not inconvenienced with much empirical evidence to adhere to- which was the case in Darwin's day-

back then it was still possible to theorize that the gaps were mere illusions, artifacts of an incomplete record.

We could imagine that species had much longer periods of time to evolve than they did, that the cell was a relatively simple object...

any remote similarity could still be presented as an example of transition. The fragments of Piltdown man belonged together 'without question' for decades, and It was still believed without question not so long ago that birds came from dinosaurs and so on.. but the evidence has increasingly clashed with all these theoretical assumptions

So I might argue that these are not 'gaps' any more, in the sense that most of Darwin's doubts have been pretty well confirmed at this point- and I think he would be a skeptic today by his own standards. But as you see here; the support 150 years later has a very distinct emotional component, it's very difficult to engage many Darwinists in any substantively scientific basis, though I commend you for trying!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, It's not difficult to make a theory work 'in theory' when you are not inconvenienced with much empirical evidence to adhere to- which was the case in Darwin's day-

back then it was still possible to theorize that the gaps were mere illusions, artifacts of an incomplete record.

We could imagine that species had much longer periods of time to evolve than they did, that the cell was a relatively simple object...

any remote similarity could still be presented as an example of transition. The fragments of Piltdown man belonged together 'without question' for decades, and It was still believed without question not so long ago that birds came from dinosaurs and so on.. but the evidence has increasingly clashed with all these theoretical assumptions

So I might argue that these are not 'gaps' any more, in the sense that most of Darwin's doubts have been pretty well confirmed at this point- and I think he would be a skeptic today by his own standards. But as you see here; the support 150 years later has a very distinct emotional component, it's very difficult to engage many Darwinists in any substantively scientific basis, though I commend you for trying!

You have no argument for abandoning evolution in favor of creationism here. One is supported by evidence and has been productive, the other is a sterile concept, that is, cannot be put to any use, and is without support.

Why would anybody exchange the latter for the former?

Until you successfully address this, as I said, you have no argument. It's like you arguing that I change to your financial advisor when he has left you broke, and my current advisor has given good advice. Why would I trade one for the other?

Can we assume that no such reasons will be forthcoming, and that such a non-response should be treated as a white flag?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One is supported by evidence and has been productive, the other is a sterile concept, that is, cannot be put to any use, and is without support.

Why would anybody exchange the latter for the former?

I would agree, it doesn't make sense to me to change from what the evidence shows now, life developing like everything else, according to predetermined designs, back to a Victorian age understanding of reality driven by a handful of immutable laws and blind chance..

but I think maybe you are seeing the 'latter' and 'former' the other way around?

in which case

You could ask many accomplished scientists like Behe, why they changed their minds. The same reason some changed from classical physics to QM, from steady state to Big Bang- none were going for the simpler, more intuitive, academically friendly, institutionalized consensus opinion.


By your analogy, I think your financial gains look really great on paper, and so you are pretty content with them as is, and perhaps don't feel any great motivation to start scrutinizing them!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would agree, it doesn't make sense to me to change from what the evidence shows now, life developing like everything else, according to predetermined designs, back to a Victorian age understanding of reality driven by a handful of immutable laws and blind chance..

but I think maybe you are seeing the 'latter' and 'former' the other way around?

in which case

You could ask many accomplished scientists like Behe, why they changed their minds. The same reason anyone changed from classical physics to QM, from steady state to Big Bang- none were going for the simpler, more intuitive, consensus opinion.


By your analogy, I think your financial gains look great on paper, and so you are pretty content with them as is, and perhaps don't feel any great motivation to start scrutinizing them!

Sorry, but I don't see a rebuttal there. What need do we have for religious concepts? What use are they?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry, but I don't see a rebuttal there. What need do we have for religious concepts? What use are they?

What use is the Big Bang? that was very much labeled a religious concept by atheists at the time also. Apparently religious concepts have a pretty good track record?

But once again it's atheists introducing their opinions on ideological implications and explicitly basing their conclusions on those.

I'm interested in the science, what's true, the evidence, not which team I think it supports, I don't think any implication should put us off that...

I don't believe any more that accident- random mutations, can produce all life we see around us, I see the evidence stacking up against this- whatever that implies is another question

 

[Jose Fly]

And getting this thread back on track

I can understand why you'd want to turn the conversation away from the reality of the situation you're in.

I just hope I'm not the only one who will remember what you described.

"Accident" of nature? or designed aerodynamic perfection?

Why do you pose that as a question? It's not like you're genuinely interested in the answers. As you so clearly explained, there is really only one option for you....."design". All other possibilities would lead you down a path of complete emotional and social ruin.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have no argument for abandoning evolution in favor of creationism here.

All Guy has are the same talking points that he repeats ad nauseum.

Darwinism is a Victorian era idea.....PILTDOWN MAN!!!......atheists........birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs.......humans didn't evolve from apes.....atheists.......PILTDOWN MAN!!!.......and did I mention that Darwinism is a Victorian era idea?

And if you ask him very many follow-ups or expose the fallacies behind the talking points, he'll ignore you and just keep repeating them over and over and over and over. And all of that's a good indication of just how inherently weak and dishonest his position is. If it were more defensible, Guy wouldn't have to resort to such things.

 

[savagewind]

As you so clearly explained, there is really only one option for you....."design". All other possibilities would lead you down a path of complete emotional and social ruin.

Now is the time for me to go out on a limb here. Is she brave enough to do it?

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly......they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑

Sorry, but I don't see a rebuttal there. What need do we have for religious concepts? What use are they?

What use is the Big Bang? that was very much labeled a religious concept by atheists at the time also. Apparently religious concepts have a pretty good track record?

But once again it's atheists introducing their opinions on ideological implications and explicitly basing their conclusions on those.

I'm interested in the science, what's true, the evidence, not which team I think it supports, I don't think any implication should put us off that...

I don't believe any more that accident- random mutations, can produce all life we see around us, I see the evidence stacking up against this- whatever that implies is another question

I'm going to continue to go with what works.

Science makes your life longer, safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting - a huge boost to the human condition.

Religious thinking hasn't done any of that.

Do you disagree? If so, will you be specific about where and why?

 

[gnostic]

When humans were kicked out of the garden and rulership of the world was handed over to the 'god' they chose to obey, no one really knows how much of an influence it had on creatures other than humans. Up until the flood humans were vegetarians and so were the animals. Only after the flood were humans given permission to eat flesh. Perhaps with the water canopy gone and the increase in radiation from the sun, both humans and some animals needed extra protein in their diet? No one knows for sure....all we know is what the Bible tells us about the future when paradise conditions are restored to the earth.

Man, Deeje. Why do you keep making things up?

The Old Kingdom pyramids in Egypt in the 3rd and 4th dynasties, predated this Flood of your bible.

Where archaeologists discovered homes of workers, those workers living near the pyramids they were building them, animal bones among the rubbish such as from cows, sheep, goats or pigs, revealed their diet.

Similar bones were found in rubbish sites of Neolithic settlements people, all over Europe and Middle East, revealed their diets not only consist of crops harvested but also that of meat.

The Neolithic period not only the start of farming but also animal husbandry. Why would they keep animals in their settlements if they weren't going to eat them.

You are forgetting in Genesis that Abel was a shepherd. Why would Abel be a shepherd if sheep and goat are not part of his diets or that of family?

You have no evidences that people didn't eat meat.

And even in older period, predating the Neolithic period, the people were Palaeolithic societies consist of hunters and gatherers, lived more nomadic life.

Even though the ice sheets (Ice Age) didn't cover all of Earth, the general or global climate were still colder than usual. Hunters not only use hides of animals to make clothes to keep warm, and bones were used as tools and as hunting weapons, they also eat meat they have killed.

Both the hunting cultures of Palaeolithic and more settled agrarian cultures of the Neolithic and Bronze Age, refuted all your unsubstantiated claims about people not eating meat before your nonexistent global Flood.

 

[gnostic]

Now is the time for me to go out on a limb here. Is she brave enough to do it?

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly......they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

So you are going to use fear of fiery lake?

Isn't that more baseless superstition?

Fear and intimidation were the tools of Christians forcing people to convert. And through the history Christians have resorted using tortures and execution tens of thousands in the name of church, of Jesus, and of God.

If you are going to use fear to browbeat today's unbelievers then you might as well go back to the time where Christians persecute heretics and witches.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm going to continue to go with what works.

Science makes your life longer, safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting - a huge boost to the human condition.

Religious thinking hasn't done any of that.

Do you disagree? If so, will you be specific about where and why?

We agree on science, the method, which is obviously not incompatible with religious thinking as demonstrated by Galileo, Lemaitre, Planck, Bill Gates etc etc

Beyond that of course religious thinking, largely Christian, founded much of the civil society you take for granted today, churches, monasteries originated and preserved most of the learning, knowledge, books through the dark ages, glorifying God by appreciating, exploring his creation has always been a huge driver of science

Atheistic thinking hasn't done any of that,- Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, Tyson, have contributed much to book sales and TV ratings, but little or nothing to practical science

Atheistic thinking has unambiguously held science back numerous times before and I think still is with the topic of this thread- an outdated and unscientific Victorian view of natural history.
The eugenics movement it directly inspired hardly boosted the human condition did it?

If you disagree I'd be interested to know if you have any substantive position on why

 

[savagewind]

So you are going to use fear of fiery lake?

Isn't that more baseless superstition?

Fear and intimidation were the tools of Christians forcing people to convert. And through the history Christians have resorted using tortures and execution tens of thousands in the name of church, of Jesus, and of God.

If you are going to use fear to browbeat today's unbelievers then you might as well go back to the time where Christians persecute heretics and witches.

It isn't about the lake of fire. It is about the sin of cowardice. People do not usually consider cowardice a sin.