Evidence God Is

[nPeace]

I mean, how does God's power work? What exactly does God know that science doesn't? Science, naturally, would like to know.

Everything B
What... Do you think he will write a scientific encyclopedia for you?

I can share with you some of the things that were known before the word science was even coined.

He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing. Job 26:7
27 He draws up the drops of water; They condense into rain from his mist; 28 Then the clouds pour it down; They shower down upon mankind. Job 36:27, 28
The knew where rain came from - the precipitation process? How? AMAZING!
Isaiah 5:6 . . .I will command the clouds not to send any rain on it. . . Isaiah 45:8
All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again. Ecclesiastes 1:7

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, . . . Leviticus 17:11
Breath of life (Spirit) Genesis 2:7; 7:21, 22
17 “As for me, I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy from under the heavens all flesh that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish. Genesis 6:17
Psalm 146:4 . . .His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.
Psalms 104:29; 146:4; Ecclesiastes 8:8.

somatic death
death of the entire body, as distinguished from local death.
A condition in which a body irreversibly loses its sentient personality, is unconscious, and is unaware of or unable to communicate with its environment, appreciate sensory stimuli or initiate voluntary activity. Reflex activity is intact, as is cardiorespiratory function

“A person whose heart and lungs stop working may be considered clinically dead, but somatic death may not yet have occurred. The individual cells of the body continue to live for several minutes. The person may be revived if the heart and lungs start working again and give the cells the oxygen they need. After about three minutes, the brain cells - which are most sensitive to a lack of oxygen - begin to die. The person is soon dead beyond any possibility of revival. Gradually, other cells of the body also die. The last ones to perish are the bone, hair, and skin cells, which may continue to grow for several hours.” - The World Book Encyclopedia (1987, Vol. 5, p. 52b)

There are many others dealing with physical, mental, and spiritual health, but science don't want to know of these since they are spiritual, so no need to mention them.

Health
The use of herbs as medicine was practiced by worshipers of the creator.

Ancient
Ezekiel 47:12 . . .Their fruitage will serve as food and their leaves for healing.”
Jeremiah 46:11 Go up to Gilead to get balsam, O virgin daughter of Egypt. In vain you have multiplied your remedies, For there is no cure for you.
Jeremiah 51:8 . . .Get balsam for her pain; perhaps she may be healed.. . .

Modern (seventeenth century)
Tolu balsam is a sap-like substance that comes from the Myroxylon balsamum tree. It is used as medicine.
Canada balsam is a plant. People use it for medicine.
Canada balsam is applied directly to the skin to treat hemorrhoids and kill germs.
Historically, it has been used for burns, sores, cuts, tumors, heart and chest pains, cancer, mucous membrane swelling (inflammation), colds, coughs, warts, wounds, and as a pain-reliever.

poultices - a soft, moist mass of material, typically of plant material or flour, applied to the body to relieve soreness and inflammation and kept in place with a cloth.
Ancient
2 Kings 20:7 . . .Isaiah then said: “Bring a cake of pressed dried figs.” So they brought it and applied it to the boil, after which he gradually recovered.

Modern
History: The Practical Poultice
A poultice, though it may take various forms, boils down to a wet compress applied to an injury or wound and then wrapped in clean cloth. This form of treatment has been documented since physicians and nurses wrote down their recipes, and that is a very long time. What may surprise the casual reader about poultices is how carefully they were created and tended to throughout history. As modern people we all too frequently imagine our ancestors neglecting treatment of injuries and even hygiene but in fact that is a myth that only feeds our sense superiority.

According to the documentation that has come down to us, both nautical and home spun, from the 17th through the early 19th centuries...

Particular fruit was considered highly beneficial (i.e. pomegranate), only recently discovered to be.

Regarding Hippocrates, a Greek physician of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. who has become known as “the father of modern medicine,” it is said: “He had no connection with the temple hospitals of his time, which were controlled by the priests of Asclepius, the god of healing.” (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 9, p. 227) Hippocrates was virtually contemporaneous with Malachi, but much that the Bible says about diseases was written by Moses about a thousand years earlier. Yet, significantly, it has been said: “The best informed medical researchers now doing the best work are arriving at the conclusion that the Bible is a very accurate scientific book. . . . The facts of life, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive medicine as given in the Bible are far more advanced and reliable than the theories of Hippocrates, many still unproven, and some found to be grossly inaccurate.” - Dr. H. O. Philips, in a letter to The AMA [American Medical Association] News, published in its issue of July 10, 1967.

Disease Preventative Measures
Proper Sanitation
Deuteronomy 23:12, 13 (protection from fly-borne infectious diseases such as dysentery and typhoid fever)
12 A private place should be designated for use outside the camp, and there is where you should go. 13 A peg should be part of your equipment. When you squat outside, you should dig a hole with it and then cover your excrement.
Leviticus 11:32-38

Significantly, it has been stated: “Prophylactic considerations were basic to this legislation, which when followed would go far toward preventing the incidence of food-borne polioencephalitis, the enteric fevers, food poisoning, and the parasitic worms. Insistence on the safeguarding of a clean supply of water was the most effective means of forestalling the rise and dissemination of diseases such as amoebiasis, the fevers of the enteric group, cholera, bilharziasis, and spirochetal jaundice. These prophylactic measures, which constitute a fundamental part of any system of public health, were of particular importance for the welfare of a nation living under primitive conditions in a subtropical region of the earth.” - The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, pp. 544, 545.

In his book The Bible and Modern Medicine, A. Rendle Short, M.D., pointed out that public sanitary law existed, if at all, only in elementary form among nations that surrounded ancient Israel, and stated: “It is the more surprising therefore that in a book like the Bible, alleged to be unscientific, there should be a sanitary code at all, and equally surprising that a nation just escaped from slavery, frequently overrun by enemies and carried away into captivity from time to time, should have on its statute books so wise and reasonable a code of rules of health. This has been recognized by good authorities, even those with no great interest in the religious aspect of the Bible.” - London, 1953, p. 37.

According to the Law, the hare and the pig were among animals the Israelites were not permitted to eat. (Leviticus 11:4-8) Regarding this, Dr. Short states: “True, we eat the pig, the rabbit and the hare, but these animals are liable to parasitic infections and are safe only if the food is well cooked. The pig is an unclean feeder, and harbours two worms, trichina and a tape worm, which may be passed on to man. The danger is minimal under present conditions in this country, but it would have been far otherwise in Palestine of old, and such food was better avoided.” - The Bible and Modern Medicine, pp. 40, 41.

Spiritually, mentally, and physically health
Exodus 20:14 . . .“You must not commit adultery.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

Drunkenness
Proverbs 20, 21, 23:29-33, 34, 35; Hosea 4:11; Matthew 15:18, 19
etc. etc.

What else has the Bible said, that some scientists don't know, or don't care to hear?
Creation of the universe. Origin of life.
Genesis 1 Goddidit.
...for a specific purpose, and it will last forever (Psalm 37:11; 78:69; 104:5; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:4; Psalms 115:16; Isaiah 45:18; Revelation 21:3, 4.

The list isn't exhausted, but I am...

 

[nPeace]

@Cacotopia I was doing some research on incest. Maybe this information may give an answer to your post.

An invention is created to make survival easier or make a part of existence more convenient. I wouldn't live very long in a malaria infested area of the globe, but someone with sickle cell anemia would. This is an example of an evolutionary adaptation to the environment.

While it can be detrimental to your health if you have the the dominate genes for the disorder, you can be a carrier for it, and be immune to malaria. This trait isn't useful at all in colder regions of the planet, but in tropical environments? Very useful. But if we were a designed creature, what was the intent of designing such a fragile creature, that walks in a manner that exposes all of it's vital organs to any assailants? We were forced to make inventions to cover ourselves from a frankly put, a poor biological design.

Not sure on how accurate this is.
13 Genetic Mutations That Can Arise from Incest

This one is
Ragtag children of horrifying incest 'cult' found living deformed, filthy and mute in scenic Australian valley spent their days having sex and cutting animals' genitals
Investigators found unwashed children born from generations of incest lived there suffering from physical deformities in a 'cult' of 40 adults and youngsters.

The cult engaged in a sexual 'free-for-all' where brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts had sex with one another over four generations.

The family told authorities the saga started in New Zealand, in the first half of last century when June Colt was born to parents who were brother and sister.

But at the time even she did not realise that the 'family cult' was a throwback to a pair of great-great grandparents who were a brother and sister. Down through the generations, the family continued to regenerate itself, the children beginning to have sex with one another as soon as they were old enough.

The result, the court documents revealed, was that some of the children seemed developmentally delayed, cognitively impaired or physically handicapped - the shocking result of sex between brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces and fathers and daughters.

What a sad story. What will their lives turn out to be?

 

[nPeace]

FYI: I do nor debate youtube videos. For obvious reasons. You find all sort of stuff on the internet, including videos about the flatness of the earth. So, you will have to tell me with your words.

The videos are educational, that is, they show the function of the systems. They function properly.
Your argument is that there are bad design.
I don't believe you want me to write out the function of the urinary and reproductive systems.
I assume you are familiar with them. Correct?

I propose to start small, human evolution for instance, and then proceed. I know creationists like to create confusion by making dozens of claims at the same time to make it difficult to reply, or by writing monster posts full of videos, but we need ro focus. I would probably do the same in their position.

What are you talking about?
You started talking about bad design, and I asked you "Why do you think those arguments are somehow reasonable arguments for this topic?"
I assume that this comment is your way of bouncing away from that question. Okay. However, I find the comments quite humorous. Somehow they appear to jump out of nowhere for no reason.

If I understood you correctly, we are great apes, but you do not believe that we have a common ancestor with the other great apes.

Why is that? Look how similar we are. Do you see signs of irreducible complexity that would make the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with chimps, impossible?

Ciao

- viole

You apparently don't understand me correctly.
Did I say we are great apes? Where?

So now you are going by looks. If scientists used that reasoning would they not be a laughing stock? Do you know the phylogenetic tree would get a complete "overhaul".?
According to the tree, there are so many things that look similar, but are so very distant.

Where did irreducible complexity come into this picture? Are you thinking of the argument about the number of beneficial mutations required, and the problems harmful ones would cause?
Do you have evidence for that happening? You can go ahead and show me.

 

[Cacotopia]

What does incest have to do with sickle cell anemia?

 

[blü 2]

Do you think he will write a scientific encyclopedia for you?

I can think of the questions. That's unremarkable. What seems most remarkable is that those people who purport to study God can't think of the questions. Otherwise there'd be a comprehensive theory of miracles, expressed in falsifiable terms, by now.

He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing. Job 26:7

How?

27 He draws up the drops of water

Why does he bother when the hydrological cycle will do it anyway?

 “As for me, I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy

How?

 

[nPeace]

I can think of the questions. That's unremarkable. What seems most remarkable is that those people who purport to study God can't think of the questions. Otherwise there'd be a comprehensive theory of miracles, expressed in falsifiable terms, by now.
How?
Why does he bother when the hydrological cycle will do it anyway?

How?

I was going along to see where you were going with this, but I can't see a point to this endless cycle. Can you help me with that?

What does incest have to do with sickle cell anemia?

What's the cause of sickle cell anemia?

 

[blü 2]

I was going along to see where you were going with this, but I can't see a point to this endless cycle. Can you help me with that?

Just the one category of question.

You say that new species arise but not by evolution.

Describe the process by which ─ to choose one at random ─ the first sloth came to exist.

 

[nPeace]

Just the one category of question.

You say that new species arise but not by evolution.

Describe the process by which ─ to choose one at random ─ the first sloth came to exist.

Process? Perhaps giving me an example might help. Give me an example by using the process taken according to your beliefs, about the sloth evolving.

 

[viole]

The videos are educational, that is, they show the function of the systems. They function properly.
Your argument is that there are bad design.
I don't believe you want me to write out the function of the urinary and reproductive systems.
I assume you are familiar with them. Correct?


What are you talking about?
You started talking about bad design, and I asked you "Why do you think those arguments are somehow reasonable arguments for this topic?"
I assume that this comment is your way of bouncing away from that question. Okay. However, I find the comments quite humorous. Somehow they appear to jump out of nowhere for no reason.


You apparently don't understand me correctly.
Did I say we are great apes? Where?

So now you are going by looks. If scientists used that reasoning would they not be a laughing stock? Do you know the phylogenetic tree would get a complete "overhaul".?
According to the tree, there are so many things that look similar, but are so very distant.

Where did irreducible complexity come into this picture? Are you thinking of the argument about the number of beneficial mutations required, and the problems harmful ones would cause?
Do you have evidence for that happening? You can go ahead and show me.

So, we look like the other apes for some theological reason, and not because we evolved from a common ancestor.

Something like: (God) thinking: mmh, now I have to create the pinnacle of my creation. The very being I created all the rest. The being my son will incarnate to. What should he look like.....
Of course, an ape is perfect! Just remove those inconvenient hair from the face, and he will look great. I am so exhausted from all these creative activities, that I cannot think of anything else better looking. My angels also look like those apes, which is a good sign.

I mean, are you sure? That does not look rational at all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

God was the conclusion to the universe... only then did he create all things... in a supernova... like a phoenix.

 

[Cacotopia]

Ive read sickle cell anemia is related to malaria since the condition was found ONLY in regions where malaria was prominent. Why do you regularly take blind leaps of "faith" to conclusions that aren't there? Incest may possibly have had a role, but we don't know for sure. But not knowing the "patient zero" and how they developed the condition is not a direct correlation to the condition arising through incest.

What led you to the conclusion that incest is the cause, do you think that incest is the only reason for genetic disorders?

 

[Cacotopia]

Process? Perhaps giving me an example might help. Give me an example by using the process taken according to your beliefs, about the sloth evolving.

Why, so you can manipulate and twist that process into your belief structure? That's not how that question works.

We on the other side of the fence understand that organisms, through every multiplication of self or procreation with other organisms pass on their genetic data. In meiosis half the number of genes are left at the end of the cycle from the "parent" cell, Mitosis all the genes are replicated, and there are times where those genes mutate and either that mutation is beneficial or not. If it is not the cell will die within the generation or the next few generations of that cell if it is beneficial it will continue to divide and make more of itself.

In procreation half of the genes of each parent are combined to to make a new life. They aren't clones, its a new set of genes from two separate organisms. the mutations and the "mixing of genes" is where our diversity comes from. And every new life is a transitional species. Your kid(s) should you choose to have them will be the next nanoscopic step in evolution.

We are just on the horizon of choosing which genes we want to be dominant or recessive, you want your kid to have blue eyes and brown hair? freckles, oh let us silence that gene that would give them sickle cell also, but let them be a carrier so they are immune, you want a boy or girl? Soon there will be no chance left, we will be designing our kids on a drawing board, and that might very well be a disaster since the human race has practically destroyed everything that was once governed by nature, when they assumed stewardship over it.

We are asking you since you don't follow evolution, if there is a system for in this scenario the sloth. How did the sloth come to be if it did not evolve. An entirely different system of things being the way they are. We shouldn't have to give you an example of the evolution of the sloth, because that's not your system.

 

[nPeace]

So, we look like the other apes for some theological reason, and not because we evolved from a common ancestor.

I don't know how you arrived at some theological reason You'll have to explain.
As far as I can tell, the argument is a philosophical one - however you arrived at you belief.

Something like: (God) thinking: mmh, now I have to create the pinnacle of my creation. The very being I created all the rest. The being my son will incarnate to. What should he look like.....
Of course, an ape is perfect! Just remove those inconvenient hair from the face, and he will look great. I am so exhausted from all these creative activities, that I cannot think of anything else better looking. My angels also look like those apes, which is a good sign.

I mean, are you sure? That does not look rational at all.

Ciao

- viole

Why do skeptics create such weird imaginations?
Is it not true that our limited understanding varies from person to person, and is it not true we believe what we find believable?
So if you find it believable that the unexplained arrival of complex chemicals found their way in an unexplainable ocean of water, and began to do the boogie, until an accidental bounce created the right chemical mix, to form a blob of a living cell, from whence a series of next to impossible processes resulted in the variety of highly complex organisms made up of trillions of blobs of cells, eventually forming you... what can I say? You've made your bed. You get to sleep in it. Sweet dreams.

I believe that it is not sensible to believe that story could be true, not only because the evidence does not support it, but because it does not seem reasonable to believe that trillions of cells miraculously self assembled into intelligent organized systems.
It seems both reasonable and logical, to accept the sensible conclusion reached by using fact based evidence - one of which I mentioned.
Design requires a designer. Life is a product of design. Life requires a designer. This is clearly observable.

As engineers we are aware of this fact. We can even go further to discuss the information in the cell, with its instructions, and rules.
Were it not for rules, and instructions, how could chemicals combine to form anything.
The wrong combination can have drastically negative results.

What caused things to move in a direction of organized physical and spiritual chemicals? Why does the most complex and most advanced life-forms yearn for spiritual qualities - love, justice, the proper use of knowledge - wisdom?
I mean... I could go on, but it boggles my mind how people can believe in evolution. You just have no idea how mind-blowing it is.

Tell me... Please, what logical reasoning do you use to not believe in, or deny an intelligent supernatural being?

 

[nPeace]

Ive read sickle cell anemia is related to malaria since the condition was found ONLY in regions where malaria was prominent. Why do you regularly take blind leaps of "faith" to conclusions that aren't there? Incest may possibly have had a role, but we don't know for sure. But not knowing the "patient zero" and how they developed the condition is not a direct correlation to the condition arising through incest.

What led you to the conclusion that incest is the cause, do you think that incest is the only reason for genetic disorders?

You jumped the the wrong conclusion, but I don't blame you.
The information on incest was not to say it was the cause of sickle cell anemia, but to help you to see that, it's not a sound argument to blame defects on bad design.
There is cause and effect, and the cause is not bad design, as the cases with incest shows.
Hope that is clear.

Why, so you can manipulate and twist that process into your belief structure? That's not how that question works.

We on the other side of the fence understand that organisms, through every multiplication of self or procreation with other organisms pass on their genetic data. In meiosis half the number of genes are left at the end of the cycle from the "parent" cell, Mitosis all the genes are replicated, and there are times where those genes mutate and either that mutation is beneficial or not. If it is not the cell will die within the generation or the next few generations of that cell if it is beneficial it will continue to divide and make more of itself.

In procreation half of the genes of each parent are combined to to make a new life. They aren't clones, its a new set of genes from two separate organisms. the mutations and the "mixing of genes" is where our diversity comes from. And every new life is a transitional species. Your kid(s) should you choose to have them will be the next nanoscopic step in evolution.

We are just on the horizon of choosing which genes we want to be dominant or recessive, you want your kid to have blue eyes and brown hair? freckles, oh let us silence that gene that would give them sickle cell also, but let them be a carrier so they are immune, you want a boy or girl? Soon there will be no chance left, we will be designing our kids on a drawing board, and that might very well be a disaster since the human race has practically destroyed everything that was once governed by nature, when they assumed stewardship over it.

We are asking you since you don't follow evolution, if there is a system for in this scenario the sloth. How did the sloth come to be if it did not evolve. An entirely different system of things being the way they are. We shouldn't have to give you an example of the evolution of the sloth, because that's not your system.

I understand how you feel. Apparently you believe your belief system is the one that is right, so therefore any belief contrary to it, is dishonest. I can't be vexed with you, because I believe you are wrong, and I get the feeling you are dishonest too.

From what you said here, this doesn't seem to be what @blü 2 was asking, because you have not described something we can't see with our eyes and observe on an every day basis.
Procreation has been known to be happening from the beginning, and it is described in the very first book of the Bible.
The process of parts being built from instructions, was even described in the Bible, centuries before DNA was even known.

I think blü 2 had something else in mind, but he will have to clarify, not by just saying what he think happened, but by showing me the process of how it happened.
You don't have to worry about me stealing anything from you, nor manipulating and twisting anything. The Bible, as I demonstrated - not once, nor twice, but several times, is well ahead of true science.
Besides, if I really wanted to manipulate and twist anything, I wouldn't have to wait on someone on RF to give me information, would I?
Perhaps it worries you that there is more than one conclusion to be reached from the evidence.

By the way, mutations are not necessary to produce new species, which is not what I am asking about.
The question blü 2 asked is not about different species of sloths, but the arrival of the first sloth, so I am thinking that means the processes involved in that.
...and yes, that is what I am asking about. Are you really that afraid?

 

[blü 2]

Well, if not ahead, certainly somewhere else than true science.

Is it indeed your view that the earth is flat, and fixed immovably, and the sun moon and stars go round it, and the sky is a hard dome to which the stars are attached, and if they come loose they'll fall to earth? Because ─ as you'd expect from documents written at those times and places ─ this is what the bible says.
When you report, I'm looking forward to testing it in my workshop.

 

[Cacotopia]

It's not a belief system! I don't need to believe because there is actual evidence supporting evolution. We do not live long enough to observe the evolution we are talking about. We can observe history and the evidence it leaves behind to draw conclusions from.

I doubt you would find evidence of a burning bush speaking to you in the sub-Saharan regions of Mesopotamia, but you WILL find plants that spontaneously combust in that region. But I HIGHLY doubt any of those events will result in voices coming from the Dictumnus shrub.

 

[Cacotopia]

It is mind blowing that you think you can get all the answers you will ever need from a 2000 year old book written pre-science.

 

[nPeace]

It's not a belief system! I don't need to believe because there is actual evidence supporting evolution. We do not live long enough to observe the evolution we are talking about. We can observe history and the evidence it leaves behind to draw conclusions from.

With all the faith required to believe in something that has not been shown to be possible, something not supported by fact based evidence, but only what is assumed to be evidence, of course you have a belief system.
Why do you keep denying what you clearly know to be true.

I doubt you would find evidence of a burning bush speaking to you in the sub-Saharan regions of Mesopotamia, but you WILL find plants that spontaneously combust in that region. But I HIGHLY doubt any of those events will result in voices coming from the Dictumnus shrub.

Both you and @blü 2 creating strawman.
Because you cannot deny that evidence supports an intelligent designer, you ignore that evidence, and pick at things in the Bible that you don't want to accept, just because they are - not impossible - but extraordinary.
Because you don't want to believe something, does that mean it's not real?

Why not look at the impossible things you are willing to believe instead. I made mention of them before.
Chemicals popped out of nowhere, started moving on their own, hijacked a rock and searched out an ideal location to land, then wait it out in the oceans for the right conditions then did a dance in the hope they would chance upon the right mix to get life started. Sounds like a story right out of a fairytale book.

If you believe these impossible things, you might as well believe the miracles in the Bible, which has been shown to be accurate where true science is concerned.
All you have is a story to try to explain what you don't want to accept - that an intelligent designer created the universe.
It gets worst. So bad is it, that you are happy with a story that you don't know how to include the beginning. Why? Because the beginning doesn't make sense, except you accept the original, and true story - which you hate.

Do you know what that's called? Plagiarism.
Hijacking a work, altering it to look different, and parading it as your own.
This is evident even in the fact that in trying to create your own story, scientists can only demonstrate that it requires an intelligent designer to build the cell with exactly the right chemicals; the right amount; the right formula. It doesn't work any other way.
It doesn't happen on its own. Isn't that why we don't observe any of it?

Many speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules.

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. [Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University] says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.” He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”

RNA (1) is required to make proteins (2), yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes (3)

I say you guys have no idea how much you are really missing out on. However, I suspect you will come to realize it, one day.

@blü 2, I am still waiting for you to share the impossible process - which was never witnessed - it took to build the sloth.
I noticed a post, which I am only just seeing.
Does procreation produce new species. You call that evolution, I say okay. I have no problem with what is referred to as evolution on a small scale. However, remember, when we say species, that's what we are referring to - nothing more.

It is mind blowing that you think you can get all the answers you will ever need from a 2000 year old book written pre-science.

What? I'm amazed that you would even consider writing this, after all the information I posted to show how the Bible is always ahead of observable science.
Here yah go. Have They Proved the Bible False?
A little snippet -
Surely, the whole point of the Bible is that God does exist and is active in human history. If this is true - and the evidence shows that it is - much of the basis of modern Bible criticism is invalidated.
Has Modern Science Shown the Bible to Be Wrong?

Are any of you guys being disconnected from the forum as I am? Annoying.

 

[Apologes]

While the idea of ID is an important component of the vast majority of theistic views it's nature is ultimately theological, not scientific. Therefore, these kinds of attempts to present ID as a scientific theory that would be measured against evolution are misguided.

Especially since natural theology has a far more plausible case to offer so I advise you to leave these washed up arguments behind and immerse yourself in what actual contemporary scholarship has to offer.

In doing so you'll do both sides a favor as you won't be making theism or yourself come across as outdated and ignorant while honest skeptics will welcome a more formidable argument to tackle.

So, we look like the other apes for some theological reason, and not because we evolved from a common ancestor.

Something like: (God) thinking: mmh, now I have to create the pinnacle of my creation. The very being I created all the rest. The being my son will incarnate to. What should he look like.....
Of course, an ape is perfect! Just remove those inconvenient hair from the face, and he will look great. I am so exhausted from all these creative activities, that I cannot think of anything else better looking. My angels also look like those apes, which is a good sign.

I mean, are you sure? That does not look rational at all.

Ciao

- viole

Your lack of theological acuteness aside, I am curious how you would support this assertion. How did you come to the conclusion that using the homo sapiens as a chosen species for the incarnation is an irrational decision?

It's not a belief system! I don't need to believe because there is actual evidence supporting evolution.

Belief is an element of knowledge. One can hardly say they know something without believing it to be true. (At least in the kind of knowledge that would be gained from observing empirical data.)

It is mind blowing that you think you can get all the answers you will ever need from a 2000 year old book written pre-science.

That would depend on what answers one needs, would it not?

 

[Jose Fly]

Does procreation produce new species. You call that evolution, I say okay. I have no problem with what is referred to as evolution on a small scale. However, remember, when we say species, that's what we are referring to - nothing more.

This is where the Jehovah's Witness' viewpoint makes absolutely no sense.

JWs accept the reality of: 1) an ancient earth, 2) that life has existed on earth for most of its history, and 3) the evolution of new species. But they also deny that evolution has ever resulted in a new taxonomic family.

However, if we combine #'s 1, 2, and 3 above, we have species producing new species for billions of years. So how exactly would a species at any given point in time know not to produce a new one, lest that new species be in a taxonomic family different from its ancient ancestor species? IOW, how is a species aware of its taxonomic status relative to its ancient relatives? And how does it prevent itself from generating a new species?

$100 says no Jehovah's Witness will ever answer.