which God is that? Ghost? Jesus? Father?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?
- Thread starter frbnsn
- Start date
which God is that? Ghost? Jesus? Father?
Not true. There are limits to how much change can happen without further mutation. But the amount of change isn't limited since the change is ultimately in the chemical DNA, which has sufficient variability to encompass anything living.
Except that the new traits are usually just modifications of *other* traits. The job changes as the trait changes. And, with duplication of genes (a common method of getting new traits), the old traits need not disappear.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Not sure. The universe being created doesn't point to any specific creator god. There are many creator gods. Anyway, that was then. I am just happy to be here now.
Mutations itself have limitations in how much they can mutate.
Modifications of other traits is microevolution, not macroevolution.
No. It is simply changes in DNA. Nothing prevents more changes.
Macroevolution is just microevolution adding up over time.
DNA changes have limits. A being can't evolve into a change of kinds. Macroevolution is different from microevolution because it implies a change of kinds.
But they do. In most cases they discovered and studied these phenomena.
I'm sure the scientists would be very interested in the faults you've found in their research or observations. Have you informed the researchers of your discoveries, or written to the scientific journals?
No, mechanical means not magic.
Magic is effect without mechanical cause. Mechanics is a description of the steps in a process. Spontaneous describes a mechanical process that occurs naturally, by natural laws, without outside intervention.
But why are they nonsense? The Big Bang is well evidenced, and relativity is so well established that much of our technology is based on it.
Specifically, what problems do you find with relativity?
What the heck is a "kind?" Kind is a creationist designation, not a taxonomic one.
Macroevolution is not different from microevolution. Macroevolution is accumulated microevolution. There is no known process stopping change; preventing the accumulation of change, and preventing an organism from eventually changing into something entirely different from the prototype.
Change occurs slowly, over time. It's a spectrum. Given enough time, and enough accumulated change, entirely new organisms result. This is an established, observed fact.
You say a being can't evolve into a new 'kind'. Do you have evidence of this,? 'cause biologists certainly have evidence to the contrary.
How are you not aware of this?
Last edited:
It's proof when you do it, and see the results. No 'hand of God' is observed.
??????
They're artifacts of the inflation. Why would you think they were anything but natural?
These are not made up. They are reasonable conclusions from observed evidence. In many cases they are tested and predictive.
What reasonable alternatives do you propose? Magic,? unevidenced, untested folklore?
This is so wrong. Science follows the evidence. It takes great pains to test evidence; to try to disprove its conclusions. The scientific method is the most productive and reliable technique ever developed.
Why do you say science "makes crap up?" What has it made up that is not evidenced?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you repeat this nonsense? You do not even understand the meaning of the terms that you use since you do not even know what micro and macro evolution are. Both have been directly observed.
You're just making up qualities that fit a pre-existing conclusion. You have no evidence for this God, you have no evidence for "self existing" or its implications.
What is a self existing being, and why does it have magical abilities?
They're just sounds. What universal meaning does a click have?
Any associated emotion exists in the interlocutors, not in the sounds or words. Any emotionality derives from the meaning arbitrarily ascribed to the word.
Words are abstractions -- linguistics 101.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The term appears to be a WLCism.
I see the problem here. You're misconstruing "law."
We're not talking about legislative edicts, were talking about the physical principles underlying reality. Physical "laws" are descriptions of how things work, not prescriptions.
And this is all fine -- as a subjective belief. But there is no objective support for these beliefs. They're univedenced, untestable, non-predictive, and could be accurately described as folklore.
If this is what you believe, fine, but don't present them as objective face or you'll be held to standards of verification and a burden of proof that I doubt you could meet.
A crystal is not like a house. It has order, but does not require design, any beauty resides in the observer, it's not an intrinsic quality. Is a chunk of graphite -- a perfect crystal -- beautiful?
Purpose? How does a crystal reveal purpose?
How do these negate the ToE?????
Last edited:
???? Please explain? Are you talking about God speaking things into existence.
Evolution is a fact. Organisms have changed over time. Many have become extinct. Many new ones have emerged. The evidence is overwhelming.
Adaptation is evolution. You say you've studied it. How is adaptation not evolution.? How are you defining evolution?
Please explain.
That explains a lot....
Sorry this post somehow escaped me yesterday.
Let's count assumtions necessary to explain the perceived beauty on earth also for landscapes that are in no way a good habitat for man (such as the Alps-picture shown in an above post):
1) God proposition. 2) naturalistic explanation.
Let's alter 1) first: I don't narrow it down to a God. I just say "higher force that is loving" ok? Theoretically it could be a loving version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too. ok?
And lets further talk about a specific kind of love: the one that is perceivable. Many people feel love for persons but never show it. This kind of love may not be called "love" for a moment, ok? Love as used here, may refer to something active, the kind of love that the loved individuals can really sense.
Furthermore, I speak of some "higher" or "greater" love meaning that it comes from some propbably supernatural source...
So now, lets count the number of assumptions necessary to explain the beauty?
1) a higher love exists.
2) a/ there is an evolutionary benefit for people to find landscapes beautiful that are detrimental as a habitat. Meaning those who recognise non-beneficial landscapes as beautiful... have better chances to survive.
b/ this effect is cutting enough to have an influence on the evolutionary process. It is not only beneficial to think that non-beneficial lanscapes are beautiful (see a/) ... but in the process of evolution, it really makes a difference if people pass their perception of beauty on to their offspring.
c/ this effect (b/) developed so early in humankind that the tendancy of ascribing beauty to non-beneficial landscapes.... had enough time to be spread and can be found in at least half of humankind by now.
d/ the effect (a/) is not evened out by potential detrimental effects of ascibing beauty to non-beneficial landscapes.
So 1) had 1 assumption... whereas 2) had 4 assumptions, so 2) is less parsimonious.
What's a non fully formed organism? Examples?
What's an intermediate organ, and what does it have to do with your being transitional?
Everything multicellular is transitional. Everything had ancestors that were different from it, and will have descendants which are different -- you included.
[QUOT]Even tribes in New Guinea know that adultery is wrong. Anthropologists have recorded it.[/QUOTE]
What is considered an illegitimate liaison varies between cultures. Adultry in the western sense is an artifact of a particular cultural model.
Basic physics and chemistry.
You don't know how matter came to be, how different elements were formed? How did you not learn this?
Design and purpose, by the way, do not explain the existence of anything. They might ascribe an agent, but they don't even imply a mechanism.
What are intermediate organs, and why would a transitional organism have them. Each transitional form is a fully formed, functional organism, with fully formed, functional forbears and, presumably, fully formed, functional descendants.
What is your conception of an intermediate organism? I get the impression we're working from different definitions. Intermediate does not mean incomplete or partially formed.
As organisms adapt to changing environments their forms change, but forms adapted to a previous environment are not partially formed.
This is theology. You're preaching. You're just making unsupported declarations.
Ok, so these beliefs all derive from the Bible.
Why do you believe the Bible is a reliable or authoritative text? Because it claims to be? Because the Christian community claims it is?
STOP IT!
You keep bringing up this argument and we keep showing you why it doesn't apply; how a natural mechanism can create order and complexity just as intentional, human engineering can.
Why are you even posting if you're not going to hear our responses? Do you just like to hear yourself preach?
Huh?What are you talking about?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So... not dead then.