Explain this to me evolutionist. In science they can explain in specific detail many functions found in nature. Photosynthesis etc. All about systems, Muscular, Nerve and it goes on. Yet evolution never can explain evolution is that type detail. You can not give one proven example of evolution of one species to another higher order species. You can't tell us what it started at and what it became. You can't explain the no. of steps it took and what each step entailed to get there. That is not like the science I am referring to above. So evolution is really non science non sense.
It looks like you are confusing the idea of "ALL" with the idea of "SOME" or "MANY".. those aren't the same ideas. And you have a peculiar understanding of science that isn't really how the word is usually understood. That might make it easier for you to arrive at your conclusion with, but your premises are based on a word conflation and a bad definition.
Allow me to explain.
Nowhere in science does it say that if we don't know absolutely
everything, what we
do know is wrong. So, you might be right that we cannot explain everything.
But you are making a mistake in reasoning. You are trying to equate not knowing
everything with not
knowing anything. And that line of reasoning doesn't follow.
Just because we don't know
all things never means we don't know
some things. We do know some things about how evolution works, and in fact, we know a LOT of things. Your understanding of science in this case is unfortunately guided by your beliefs. Only creationists would describe science the way you have done.
Plus explain this. You say An explosion of energy started all the extreme order and precision we see in creation. Yet in no other example can you give where an explosion of energy ever produces order, precision etc. When I see storms, explosions etc. Much less energy than the Big Bang supposedly had and the aftermath is anything but order, precision, intracate design etc. My logic and common sense just doesn't buy it.
Ok, you don't buy it. You don't have to. But, if you think that the origins of the universe has anything to do with evolution, you are simply wrong. There are different fields of study in science. If you want to jump to another field, that's fine.. but cosmology is not evolution.
But when you say that you don't buy it. you have to consider that you are disagreeing with a huge amount of knowledge and science. I don't know how you arrived at your opinion. The scientists do use a very rigorous method to test what they claim. It's the most rigorous method that humanity has. I don't want to be rude, but, what method are you using to evaluate all of that data?
Evolution says the Design we see in creation only appears designed. Well that might be correct if talking about a cloud. But we are talking about FUNCTIONAL DESIGN etc. That is a big big difference. It is what makes life possible since that Function makes life possible.
If you use the example of a cloud, and say that it is not designed, fine. That's a part of nature. And I can say that a cloud is "designed" to provide shade, rain, wind, and beauty. These are functions that I can ascribe to clouds. But I realize that this is me doing that .. And you want to now say that humans are different from clouds. Clouds are not designed, but humans are?
Can you explain the difference between one part of nature and another part of nature?
I don't understand at all what you mean by function makes life possible. Does a cloud's function make life possible? Does a car's function makes life possible? Function itself is what, exactly, in your way of seeing things?
I can ascribe function to anything at all.. rocks, clouds, cars, and even people. I don't see how our ability to ascribe function in things as a means to making life possible.
Evolution has no real thinking brain. Yet you act as if it did. It reminds me of the illustration I like to give.
Mother Nature decides to form the faces on Mt Rushmore. So it gets the forces and processes of nature to join together and uses rain, wind, erosion and time to form those faces. It shows design (we know it was) yet it isn't life. But see life not only shows Design, it is functional and makes real life possible.
That's right. Nature doesn't have a brain. And I don't know who you are talking to .. these people who seem to think that it does. You'd have to ask a lot of atheists and scientists to find out if any of them do think that nature has a brain or the capacity to think without a brain. We have NO evidence that thoughts can happen without brains of some sort.
Now, in your Mount Rushmore example, we have HUMANS here doing things to a mountain, not at all Nature. But we already know that humans have brains. We don't have any knowledge that nature can produce something like a mount Rushmore. I think if we did have an example like that.. it would help your case, but we just don't. Nature cannot think. And no atheists or evolutionary biologist would say that it does.. so.. I'm confused as to who you are referring to here.
I think it's the creationist who claims that there is this grand brain at the end of the rainbow doing everything you call a god. Atheists certainly don't believe in a brainless mind out there.. [/QUOTE]
In all of my life, I have yet to see where I find functional Design, Engineering, Programming etc not have intelligent brains behind it. Yet evolution tries to sell me that what we have occured w/o an actual intelligent brain behind it. Really? Like Mother Nature and the faces on Mt Rushmore?
That's right.. the only evidence we have of minds are of beings with brains. We have overwhelming evidence for brains producing thoughts and designs. And we have no evidence for nature having thoughts or making designs. And.. I'm confused a bit.. it looks like you're saying that the faces on Mount Rushmore were produced naturally? You can't possibly mean
THAT.. surely.
Even atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle admitted it took intelligence and evolution was impossible. He described it thusly. The odds for evolution are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a 747 ready for take off on a runway! How did he get around the obvious intelligence needed that he acknowledged. He said it had to have come from outer space! That is sure pure science huh!
Right. He didn't understand evolution either, when he wrote that. That's not at all the process described by evolution. So, his opinion about evolution is based on a false idea of it. Not a good opinion at all. It's a bit shocking that such a powerful mind can be so wrong about an aspect of science. but we aren't experts in everything, just because we are an expert in something.. SOME and ALL not being the same.
I want examples where precise intricate Design Engineering Programming has ever occurred w/o actual intelligence behind it?
As far as I know, that takes a human.
Gee, if I walk upon a beach and see a cell phone, computer etc I know it took intelligence to Design, Engineer and Program it? Why can't you admit the obvious?
A cell phone is obviously the product of humans. Not of nature. I think that's pretty obvious. Can you show me an example of a natural cell phone or a natural Design Engineering Programming that has occured w/o actualy HUMAN intelligence behind it?
We have HUMAN intelligence. We agree on that.. but you want to say that since we only have HUMAN intelligence, that nature must have intelligence? Where is this intelligence? Other than in humans and in animals to a lesser extent, where IS this intelligence that you want to believe in?
Programming.. humans do that.. cell phones, only humans so far. So.. you have proved to me quite conclusively that only humans and other animals to a lesser extent design anything. Now, when are you going to make a case for this .. brainless designer you seem to believe in?
Dawkins the Blind watchmaker has always amused me. Why? Regardless of whether a watchmaker was blind or not. He couldn't make Design, Engineer or Program the watch w/o actual intelligent thinking brain could he?
You seem to insist that nature must be capable of design, and of thought since design is a form of thinking. Now, the ONLY example you ever use to prove this is that humans have brains and that humans design things. Well, that only proves that HUMANS have brains and that HUMANS can design things. Your case, however, isn't about HUMANS .. it's about nature or god or something. So, it's no good at all to provide evidence of HUMAN thinking and designing.. because we all accept that humans do it.
You want to jump from HUMAN thought to.. some god thinking or nature itself thinking.. and designing.. and I see absolutely no evidence for that leap. You have to explain how you get from human design to a god design. I don't see any attempt at an explanation. You offer your incredulity.. and your denial, and your misunderstanding of the science, but that's not evidence for a thinking nature or a thinking god. It's your opinion, but your opinion isn't evidence. In science, we demand evidence. Anyone can just make things up..
BTW isn't it interesting that man's "evolved" brain still can't match what evolution says a non thinking intelligence Designed, Engineered and Programmed. Man study's nature to learn how to better things for man and still can't match it.
That's right.. humans are limited.. so what? We can't reproduce gravity, and yet you seem to accept gravity. Matching what has occurred in nature isn't any requirement in science. I don't know why you even bring it up.
So I want logical common sense replies to disprove my logical, comon sense "evolved" brain.
Sorry, but parts of science are hard. It takes years and years of study to become an expert in a scientific field. You can get popularized versions of the evidence for evolution, it's out there, it's plentiful, and it's way better than most of the people in here could provide for you. But if you really don't want to learn, that's fine. A lot of people don't bother with learning.
Sometimes, in life, it's just not all that simple.
Stick to the subject and don't use your usual tactics of avoidance and changing the subject to avoid answering what you can't. Much less personal attacks showing you can't answer so you attack saying I don't understand evolution. See the problem is I actually do.
Well, from what I've read, I can't possibly agree that you understand evolution. Sorry. That's an impasse.
That is why, like Fred Hoyle, I realize it is impossible and took a supreme Intelligence. Difference I acknowledge God, Jesus the actual creator God. Colossians first Chapter and part of chapter 2 and Romans chapter 1.
Well, you realize something that most scientists don't. I will go with the huge majority of scientists who work in the field. You see, I don't believe that in just this one case, there's this demonic conspiracy of lies and stupidity from the scientific community.
I know a few scientists.. Most of them are normal, healthy individuals who happen to know a lot more than the rest of us. They just really want to know what is true, with no religious or anti-religious agenda.
You don't believe it, we got it. But your belief or unbelief says nothing at all about the actual theory. You have a religious conviction that has you denying science. OK.. too bad.