Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Let's suppose all life get extinction , there is one single proteint cell in world alive, what will do that cell alone ?

Depends on what its inherent capabilities are and what environmental stimuli there are.

That's support my view.

You think it's formed by a PERSON, an ENTITY of some sort. Rain and stuff aren't sentient.

So you value the information depend/according religion of his publishor ?

There's a reason you don't let oil companies tell you how safe oil is.

DNA don't order to cells to orginase the cells to build body.

That's precisely what DNA does, as well as other things such as environmental stimuli. A stem cell is a stem cell and can become ANY cell, but it will become what it's "supposed" to be per the DNA rules depending on where it is at the time it specializes.

which mean 230 billion times different size ?

*sigh* They are not bigger. They are still cell-sized. What they did was reproduce and then specialize as the development process continued.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What are you trying to say? Don't we all agree that humans begin as very small things?


Yet we see it happen, as well as significant defects. Mutations happen all the time, millions of them -- makes up for low percentage.

It's assumed, inferred from the theory, we don't see it. But you agree with the probability math- significantly deleterious mutations are vastly more probable than an advantageous one, far less a single 'random' mutation producing any significant design advantage.

There is also reproductive variation. A litter of puppies won't all be the same, and not because of mutations. One might have an advantageous feature for the environment it finds itself in. It will likely have more offspring and the feature will spread.

True, but without random mutation, there is no variation -including lucky advantages- to pick from between parents - so everything still stems from lucky random mutations (so goes the theory). And the recombination for the new cells is also random according to the theory.

I thought this was your contention: that the design improvements were random, ie: flukes.

No - I believe they are designed, planned, emerging according to specific pre determined instructions, just like the physical universe turned out to be. I see no reason for this phenomena to suddenly switch off at the point of the 1st replicator- leaving everything else to chance. Especially when the changes are occuring at the same quantum level.

Species like the Nylon eating bacteria or London tube mosquitos? Yes, they appeared suddenly, but why posit magic? If something conferring a significant reproductive advantage occurrs, especially in a rapidly reproducing species and in a novel environment, it can spread through the population quickly. How long the feature persists depends a lot on how long the environment it's adapted to persists.
I don't understand why you think there's some kind of magical manipulation involved. Normal evolutionary mechanisms can account for all of this. No appeal to magic is needed.
Lots of alternative explanations are possible, but they aren't likely.

significant design improvements spontaneously occurring for no reason, sounds more like magic to me. As we started with - the phenomena of ID is something we can directly observe existing, in ourselves- is it magical? in a way perhaps. It is certainly supernatural in that it transcends natural processes, that's what gives it it's unique power of explanation.

Positing an unsupported alternative over the usual, well known, observable mechanism is not reasonable. Occam's razor, and all....

is this 1890? that's exactly what they said to Lemaitre and Max Planck- QM was pseudoscience. The simplest superficial explanations were the easiest for us to grasp, the most tempting to cling to, but nature itself clearly is not beholden to the same fallacy. Evolution, I would argue, was a perfectly logical extension of Newtonian physics 150 years ago. But from what we know now- it represents a dramatic shift away from how nature developed up to the point of life. The theory survives similarly by the 'immutable law' status it has been given.

And I AM positing the observable mechanism- ID, creative design by creative intelligence is observable, we simply cannot verify that it can happen any other way

 

[Shad]

No I said everything formed/designed by something else.

Which is false.

 

[Godobeyer]

Depends on what its inherent capabilities are and what environmental stimuli there are.

Catch you, so who gave the capabilities ?

You think it's formed by a PERSON, an ENTITY of some sort. Rain and stuff aren't sentient.

Rainbow formed by rain and light.

That's precisely what DNA does, as well as other things such as environmental stimuli. A stem cell is a stem cell and can become ANY cell, but it will become what it's "supposed" to be per the DNA rules depending on where it is at the time it specializes.

We just know that but we don't know HOW.
DNA is like a copybook, so who wrote on it first ?

*sigh* They are not bigger. They are still cell-sized. What they did was reproduce and then specialize as the development process continued.

You wrong, zygote is nothing compared to your body.
I can't beg you to imagine what size you was.

 

[Godobeyer]

Please stop including me in your anti-scientific worldview - just because I'm a theist doesn't mean I reject science in favour of imagination, which is what you admit to here.

I personally don't consider you theist.

I never including you.

 

[Kirran]

I personally don't consider you theist.

I never including you.

Ooooooh! Damn. Harsh, man.

The whole 'I believe in God and worship him every day' doesn't hack it?

I don't consider you to be a Muslim - doesn't mean anything, right?

 

[Godobeyer]

Ooooooh! Damn. Harsh, man.

The whole 'I believe in God and worship him every day' doesn't hack it?

I don't consider you to be a Muslim - doesn't mean anything, right?

No, it's does not mean anything.
Your opinion is not considerable to me .

 

[Kirran]

No, it's does not mean anything.
Your opinion is not considerable to me .

So doesn't that make it equally unreasonable to say I'm not a theist? Why I'm not, I don't understand anyway. What with the whole 'believing in God' thing...

 

[Godobeyer]

Which is false.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Kirran]

Prove me wrong.

Nobody can demonstrate that a cloud, a pebble or a lump of my faeces is designed. Argument from incredulity is good enough individually but doesn't hold water in a debate.

 

[Godobeyer]

So doesn't that make it equally unreasonable to say I'm not a theist? Why I'm not, I don't understand anyway. What with the whole 'believing in God' thing...

Your view is support atheism more theism.

You are not deal with your self, sometimes you said God created us, sometimes no it's evolution by one cell (first cell)as evolutionists believe.

I looked to hinduism it's all about creation,almost similar to what I believe.

creation not thought one cell (before million of years) as evolutionists/atheists believe in.

Believe on creation or religion is base on imagination in first place.

 

[Godobeyer]

Nobody can demonstrate that a cloud, a pebble or a lump of my faeces is designed. Argument from incredulity is good enough individually but doesn't hold water in a debate.

It's formed from water.

 

[Kirran]

Your view is support atheism more theism.

You are not deal with your self, sometimes you said God created us, sometimes no it's evolution by one cell (first cell)as evolutionists believe.

I looked to hinduism it's all about creation,almost similar to what I believe.

creation not thought one cell (before million of years) as evolutionists/atheists believe in.

Believe on creation or religion is base on imagination in first place.

Hindus vary widely on what they believe, what stories they know and follow and how they understand them.

I am a theist, so I don't support atheism in my views. Simplistic monotheism isn't the only game in town.

Creation and evolution are not incompatible. Creation occurs in every moment, and that manifests as the world we observe. Part of what we observe is evolution.

It's formed from water.

Pebbles? Faeces? Where's the designer?

 

[Godobeyer]

Hindus vary widely on what they believe, what stories they know and follow and how they understand them.

That's your believe, if you don't follow it ,so you are not believer.

Do you agree what video said ?

I am a theist, so I don't support atheism in my views.

That's what I really doubt about.

Creation and evolution are not incompatible. Creation occurs in every moment, and that manifests as the world we observe. Part of what we observe is evolution.

My point is about about creation,from begining. is just insult to me, what you said about "imagination".

Fact theory of evolution is become a religion of atheism.

Pebbles? Faeces? Where's the designer?

formed from water,formed in/by air.

 

[Kirran]

That's your believe, if you don't follow it ,so you are not believer.

Do you agree what video said ?

Did you watch the video? It says "Hindus have many ways of thinking about God." I agree with the video broadly, but think that the details are just stories. But the basic idea of form appearing within nothingness as the act of God, yeah, that's what I believe has happened, is happening and will always happen.

That's what I really doubt about.

You doubt I believe in God? Why would I pretend?

My point is about about creation,from begining. is just insult to me, what you said about "imagination".

Fact theory of evolution is become a religion of atheism.

What was the insult?

How can evolution be an atheist doctrine when it's accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, by many other prominent Christian denominations, by many forms of Judaism, by some Islamic scholars, by a large proportion of Hindus...?

formed from water,formed in/by air.

Pebbles are made of water? You think so?

 

[Godobeyer]

Did you watch the video? It says "Hindus have many ways of thinking about God." I agree with the video broadly, but think that the details are just stories. But the basic idea of form appearing within nothingness as the act of God, yeah, that's what I believe has happened, is happening and will always happen.

In one short sentence, Do you agree with instant creation by God?

You doubt I believe in God? Why would I pretend?

I don't know why you pretend!

What was the insult?

How can evolution be an atheist doctrine when it's accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, by many other prominent Christian denominations, by many forms of Judaism, by some Islamic scholars, by a large proportion of Hindus...?

Its known that theory of evolution considered by atheists as origin of life,God nothing to do with.

When I refered to imagination of creation, you insult my view.

Pebbles are made of water? You think so?

I am confused you were talking about clouds ?

pebbles made by nature forces,sea or volcano ,...etc

 

[Valjean]

That's was a point I was to sent.
but it's seems you are hasty.

The response was a joke. I was being humorous, since the serious answer seemed so obvious.

No It's not.

Exactly my point. there are things that appear complex or amazing but are natural, and don't require divine intervention.

If that true.I think there is websites made by atheists biased and had propaganda of atheism.

Do you understand the difference between propaganda? It does not try to present a balanced review.
A propaganda site cherry-picks facts, twists facts, presents half-truths or falsehoods as fact. Its goal is political or religious indoctrination.

Just simple like that ?!

Yes, just a simple blueprint. Everyone knows this. But great complexity can come from a simple blueprint.
The whole internet operates with just two letters.

This is different between believers and non-believer,we see what you can't see.

You "see" with your emotions, not with facts. Your opinions are not arrived at by critiacal analysis. facts

That's "explosion"
No I think it's destory the idea of evolution.

How??? How would a particular period of evolution destroy evolution?
Sometimes evolution happens quickly and sometimes slowly. Evolution during the Cambrian happened faster than it did in the pre-Cambrian. How does that "destroy" evolution?

Give it name : is method used by atheists/evolutionists as justification , so they gave names instead of facts.

I've never heard of this "give it a name." What does it mean? Where did you hear about it? I doubt if any atheists here have heard of it.
Can you give an example?
Atheists are generally motivated by facts, not "names." I don't understand what you mean by a "name."

Imagination:is help to reach my ideas,I do believe we theist had that kind of thinking,atheists don't have.

"Atheists" don't have any particular kind of thinking. I think you're mixing up atheists and scientists.
Imagination is not thinking. It is likely to lead to imaginary conclusions; to an imaginary God.
To reach a reasonable conclusion you need to identify the relevant facts and analyse them logically,

 

[Kirran]

In one short sentence, Do you agree with instant creation by God?

In every moment, yes. It is happening now.

I don't know why you pretend!

That's good. Because I don't.

Its known that theory of evolution considered by atheists as origin of life,God nothing to do with.

So what if most atheists believe in evolution? So do huge numbers of theists. Dude, it's officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

When I refered to imagination of creation, you insult my view.

Man you're gonna have to be more specific.

 

[Kirran]

How??? How would a particular period of evolution destroy evolution?
Sometimes evolution happens quickly and sometimes slowly. Evolution during the Cambrian happened faster than it did in the pre-Cambrian. How does that "destroy" evolution?

Actually there's increasing evidence that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't so much of a thing. Taxa we've historically understood to have emerged during the CE have been found to have existed previously, we've found quite a bit of diversification actually happened during the Ordovician, and in any case the new taxa emerging during the Cambrian were almost entirely benthic, with little "explosion" having occurred among pelagic organisms.

 

[McBell]

Its known that theory of evolution considered by atheists as origin of life,God nothing to do with.

No, it is not known "that theory of evolution considered by atheists as origin of life".

Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life.