Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

Evolution is based on interpretation of the evidence. What has been observed is not macro-ecolution...it is adaptation within specific species. The documentation is also based on human interpretation of the "evidence" they find.

Humans have come to conclusions about a lot of things over the centuries and time and further research has forced them to change what was once accepted as fact. This is the human track record. The Bible, on the other hand has not changed its story ever.

I have no faith in man to evaluate anything that must of necessity rob them of their claim to know better than the Creator.


In whose opinion? Those who think they can't be wrong?....until the next discovery forces them to change their mind again?
Not an exact science, is it? Hardly honest to call a theory, a fact. Adding the word "scientific" does not automatically make something right.



The Bible tells a rather condensed story about the Creator and his creation. It gives simple explanations for very complex events and the reasons why humans lost what God originally gave them. And then it tells us how the Creator will rectify the problems without forcing humans to give up the gift of free will.

The simplicity is deceptive. But the Bible has not changed its message since it was written.

It is what the Bible doesn't tell us where evolution wants to jump in and fill the gaps with things that are merely their opinion about what happened before the Bible's narrative begins in the garden of Eden.



There is no reason for me to believe that scientists are more knowledgable than the Creator. What science is coming to terms with at present, is that the more they find out....the more they realize how much more there is to know. They have barely scratched the surface.....and yet look at the grandiose claims? Many here claim that evolution is a FACT....we all know that it is not. It is the opinion of those who are making educated guesses about what they unearth, nothing more.

The "evidence" they have is wide open to their own interpretation of what they "think" happened.

Man is claiming to place his limited knowledge on the same level as the one who created all things.....the very one who created the science that they are only just beginning to understand. To accept what they say over what God says, to me is ridiculous. It always will be.

Besides not changing, why is the Biblical account so convincing to you based on the available physical evidence? In other words not why you think evolution is flawed, but why you think the bible lines up well with the available evidence.

 

[JayJayDee]

And yet one creature evolving into another (speciation) is an observed fact.
The evolution of new physical structures is an observed fact.

Adaptation is an established fact.....adaptation explains small changes within one species.

Please look up speciation in Wiki, which has been given to me as a reference many time by those want to demonstrate where the experiments in speciation took scientists.

When you look at the three spine stickleback fish, was there ever a time when the limited experiments they performed ever produced a different creature altogether? If they didn't, then it is pure speculation about what happened over the millions of years that preceded their experiments.

Did the fruit flies become anything other than fruit flies? If not, then again the scientists are filling in the gaps with educated guesses....not facts. Their assumptions, no matter how plausible they sound, are not facts.

There is no more hard "evidence" for evolution than there is for an intelligent Creator. Those are the facts.

I am sure that a scientist would have a very different interpretation of the Bible than believers.....just as those who are believers have a very different view of evolutionary science. It's all in the interpretation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolution is based on interpretation of the evidence.

Okay, so, say you and I have look at the same piece of evidence, but we both have different "interpretations" of what it signifies; what method would you propose we use to determine which of our interpretations is more or less likely to be accurate than the other? What is that method called?

What has been observed is not macro-ecolution...it is adaptation within specific species.

Wrong. We have already directly observed evolution that breaks the species barrier. Speciation has been observed.

Humans have come to conclusions about a lot of things over the centuries and time and further research has forced them to change what was once accepted as fact. This is the human track record. The Bible, on the other hand has not changed its story ever.

The fact that science adjusts based on what is observed, and changes when new facts are discovered, is what makes it more reliable as a methodology for ascertaining the truth of the Universe. Not being able to change your opinion or interpretation is called wilful ignorance.

In whose opinion?

It's not an opinion - it is a fact. There is not a single testable hypothesis ever been conceived to test "intelligent design science". Can you give an example?

Not an exact science, is it? Hardly honest to call a theory, a fact.

Theories and facts are two different things. Gravity is a fact - it is something observable and demonstrable - the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact. Evolution is the same.

Adding the word "scientific" does not automatically make something right.

No, but using rigorous scientific methodologies, research and experimentation makes a conclusion more likely to be right.

The Bible tells a rather condensed story about the Creator and his creation.

Keyword: "story".

A cheap shot, I know, but since you are continually hung up on the language used by scientists I thought it would be only fair to hoist you by your own petard.

It is what the Bible doesn't tell us where evolution wants to jump in and fill the gaps with things that are merely their opinion about what happened before the Bible's narrative begins in the garden of Eden.

Actually, no. Evolution isn't explaining the gaps in the Bible. Evolution, and science in general, disregards the entirety of the Bible. The Bible is not a solution, and never has been - the Bible is merely another gap; a postulation written millenia ago by people who didn't know any better. Evolution isn't competing with the Bible, and was never supposed to. If you believe the Bible, go right on ahead - the facts will continue to exist regardless of your ignorance of them, and evolution will still be true no matter how little the Bible changes.

There is no reason for me to believe that scientists are more knowledgable than the Creator.

Unless the creator doesn't exist, of course. Then they kind of win by default.

What science is coming to terms with at present, is that the more they find out....the more they realize how much more there is to know. They have barely scratched the surface.....and yet look at the grandiose claims? Many here claim that evolution is a FACT....we all know that it is not.

Wrong again. Evolution has already been observed - you yourself admitted that evolution occurs when you mentioned adaptation above. Evolution IS THE CAUSE OF ADAPTATION. All you disagree with is the EXTENT of evolution, you don't deny evolution itself. What you're saying is akin to saying "I don't believe in the human ability to travel by foot, but I do believe we can sprint short distances." Sprinting requires travelling by foot, and adaptation (within species or otherwise) requires evolution. You seriously don't seem to understand even the words you are using in this debate.

The "evidence" they have is wide open to their own interpretation of what they "think" happened.

Honestly, what is it you think scientists spend all day doing? Sitting around in lab coats and saying "You know what I think...?" to each other? Or maybe, just maybe, they actually use the scientific method to rigorously test their hypotheses and formulating experiments which demonstrate or falsify their ideas so that they can put those ideas to work producing things that benefit humanity.

Man is claiming to place his limited knowledge on the same level as the one who created all things.....

How, exactly? How is saying "I think I've figured out how living things diversify over time" equal to "I am as wise as a God!!"? That's extremely silly.

 

[leibowde84]

Adaptation is an established fact.....adaptation explains small changes within ones species.

Please look up speciation in Wiki, which has been given to me as a reference many time by those want to demonstrate where the experiments in speciation took scientists.

When you look at the three spine stickleback fish, was there ever a time when the limited experiments they performed ever produced a different creature altogether? If they didn't, then it is pure speculation about what happened over the millions of years that preceded their experiments.

Did the fruit flies become anything other than fruit flies? If not, then again the scientists are filling in the gaps with educated guesses....not facts. Their assumptions, no matter how plausible they sound, are not facts.

There is no more hard "evidence" for evolution than there is for an intelligent Creator. Those are the facts.

I am sure that a scientist would have a very different interpretation of the Bible than believers.....just as those who are believers have a very different view of evolutionary science. It's all in the interpretation.

how do you explain things like tailbone? did you think that humans at one point had tails? if so where is the fossil evidence to back that up? or, do you think our apelike ancestors actually had a tail? what do you think is more plausible?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you look at the three spine stickleback fish, was there ever a time when the limited experiments they performed ever produced a different creature altogether? If they didn't, then it is pure speculation about what happened over the millions of years that preceded their experiments.

This is called "moving the goalposts". One post earlier you said that adaptation can only be within the species - that is now shown to you to be demonstrably false. So, now, you've gone from saying "species" to "a different creature altogether", which is a vague enough criteria that any example we can give you you can easily brush off as saying "but they're still the same kind of creature" without having any rationale or justification for it. Learn what the words you use mean before you use them. If you want to claim that adaptation can only occur within the species, you should know what "species" means. That way, you don't immediately have to back-track and change your argument from "species" to "kinds", which makes you look quite foolish and desperate.

How about this: Give an example of exactly the "kind" of creature another creature could produce that would demonstrate evolution to you. Where, precisely, is the bar in your mind if it isn't at the species level? If you cannot give an accurate point at which you can say "THIS constitutes a creature producing a different creature altogether", then your argument is just meaningless babble. You might as well say "only producing an example of a jibbetyjabber would be evidence enough for me!", and nobody could ever hope to dissuade you because any time they put something in front of you that they think fits the criteria of a jibbetyjabber, you just tell them it's not a jibbetyjabber. So, I'm asking you up front: what, PRECISELY, constitutes "a different creature altogether"?

Did the fruit flies become anything other than fruit flies? If not, then again the scientists are filling in the gaps with educated guesses....not facts. Their assumptions, no matter how plausible they sound, are not facts.

Except for the facts which support their conclusions and lead to the conclusions in the first place. Those ARE facts.

There is no more hard "evidence" for evolution than there is for an intelligent Creator. Those are the facts.

Wrong. Try again.

I am sure that a scientist would have a very different interpretation of the Bible than believers.....just as those who are believers have a very different view of evolutionary science. It's all in the interpretation.

Problem is, you're assuming scientists cannot be believers. Are you completely unaware that there are millions of scientists who are theists? Do you honestly think ALL scientists are atheists?

And no, it's not all up to interpretation. You have your right to your own beliefs, but you do not have your right to your own facts. Facts and facts, and the facts signularly support the theory of evolution. No amount of protesting or disbelief is going to change reality.

 

[McBell]

Evolution is based on interpretation of the evidence. What has been observed is not macro-ecolution...it is adaptation within specific species. The documentation is also based on human interpretation of the "evidence" they find.

Humans have come to conclusions about a lot of things over the centuries and time and further research has forced them to change what was once accepted as fact. This is the human track record. The Bible, on the other hand has not changed its story ever.

I have no faith in man to evaluate anything that must of necessity rob them of their claim to know better than the Creator.

In whose opinion? Those who think they can't be wrong?....until the next discovery forces them to change their mind again?
Not an exact science, is it? Hardly honest to call a theory, a fact. Adding the word "scientific" does not automatically make something right.

The Bible tells a rather condensed story about the Creator and his creation. It gives simple explanations for very complex events and the reasons why humans lost what God originally gave them. And then it tells us how the Creator will rectify the problems without forcing humans to give up the gift of free will.

The simplicity is deceptive. But the Bible has not changed its message since it was written.

It is what the Bible doesn't tell us where evolution wants to jump in and fill the gaps with things that are merely their opinion about what happened before the Bible's narrative begins in the garden of Eden.

There is no reason for me to believe that scientists are more knowledgable than the Creator. What science is coming to terms with at present, is that the more they find out....the more they realize how much more there is to know. They have barely scratched the surface.....and yet look at the grandiose claims? Many here claim that evolution is a FACT....we all know that it is not. It is the opinion of those who are making educated guesses about what they unearth, nothing more.

The "evidence" they have is wide open to their own interpretation of what they "think" happened.

Man is claiming to place his limited knowledge on the same level as the one who created all things.....the very one who created the science that they are only just beginning to understand. To accept what they say over what God says, to me is ridiculous. It always will be.

I really wish WatchTower would come up with a new song and dance for JW's to perform for evolution.
Repeating the same old lines of bull **** gets tiresome.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Which is nothing more than knowledge easily ascertained from miscarriages and stillbirths (unfortunately common at the time) and was generally known by many civilisations prior to the period when Islam started.

Luck for us, not everyone is superstitious and we have found ways to reduce the problem.

But superstitions linger:

Pregnancy and childbirth around the world: #20 Pregnancy superstitions around the world

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Evolution is based on interpretation of the evidence. What has been observed is not macro-ecolution...it is adaptation within specific species. The documentation is also based on human interpretation of the "evidence" they find.

Humans have come to conclusions about a lot of things over the centuries and time and further research has forced them to change what was once accepted as fact. This is the human track record. The Bible, on the other hand has not changed its story ever.

I have no faith in man to evaluate anything that must of necessity rob them of their claim to know better than the Creator.

So we are to abandon all sense of knowledge? Do you trust your doctor to fix you or are you worried that his knowledge will be proven wrong one day? What about the gas in your car? Will it suddenly stop working? Are you ever worried that the theory of gravity may be wrong and we might fly off the earth at any moment?

And if you have such a low opinion of the human ability to interpret information ( we agree but I think on different subject matter) why would you ever assume to know what the creator wants or has said? Humans are such bumbling buffoons in your opinion that you wouldn't know which way was up if god made you a youtube instructional how to video.

In whose opinion? Those who think they can't be wrong?....until the next discovery forces them to change their mind again?
Not an exact science, is it? Hardly honest to call a theory, a fact. Adding the word "scientific" does not automatically make something right.

By the views of those who have dedicated their life to the study and understanding of our universe. By anyone who can take the time and effort to learn it. We don't know 100% if we are right. But there is no evidence to the contrary at this time and so long as 2+2 keeps = 4 I don't feel the need to change it.

The Bible tells a rather condensed story about the Creator and his creation. It gives simple explanations for very complex events and the reasons why humans lost what God originally gave them. And then it tells us how the Creator will rectify the problems without forcing humans to give up the gift of free will.

The simplicity is deceptive. But the Bible has not changed its message since it was written.

It is what the Bible doesn't tell us where evolution wants to jump in and fill the gaps with things that are merely their opinion about what happened before the Bible's narrative begins in the garden of Eden.

This is irrelevant. There is no evidence that the Bible is correct. There is no evidence that any religion is correct and the fact that you throw out every human achievement based upon your personal or cultural interpretation of a book written by men over the course of several hundred years at least 2k years ago and then re-compiled by other men (into several different cannons based upon specific religion and sect) and then translated seems foolish to me.

There is no reason for me to believe that scientists are more knowledgable than the Creator. What science is coming to terms with at present, is that the more they find out....the more they realize how much more there is to know. They have barely scratched the surface.....and yet look at the grandiose claims? Many here claim that evolution is a FACT....we all know that it is not. It is the opinion of those who are making educated guesses about what they unearth, nothing more.

The "evidence" they have is wide open to their own interpretation of what they "think" happened.

Man is claiming to place his limited knowledge on the same level as the one who created all things.....the very one who created the science that they are only just beginning to understand. To accept what they say over what God says, to me is ridiculous. It always will be.

You are correct. The more we learn the more we find we don't know. Every question answered raises 10 more. That is the nature of science and that has always been the nature of science and the pursuit of knowledge. However there is zero evidence to suggest that your "god" even exists much less has all the answers and even less of a chance that if such a god existed and had the answers, conveyed them to humanity in any sense of the word.

 

[FearGod]

Which is nothing more than knowledge easily ascertained from miscarriages and stillbirths (unfortunately common at the time) and was generally known by many civilisations prior to the period when Islam started.

Yes i know endless excuses.

 

[FearGod]

Fetal development has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution does not claim that a single entity has ever evolved into a different species. that would actually be a ridiculous notion.

Who said it has to do, i said the fetus will become a new different creation.

 

[JayJayDee]

Fun fact; you surely see Basilosaurus there, right? That name means "King Lizard". Do you know why it's called that? Because when we first found it, we were convinced it was some manner of sea-going reptile. Then we found a far more complete skeleton and we noticed that the body-plan is entirely wrong for a reptile. While the shape looks reptilian, the bone structure is just wrong. But they didn't change the name because, well, it's an established name.

Oh they are funny all right.....I found this was interesting....I do look up various sites to see what all the fuss is about.

This is from Wiki......

No complete Basilosaurus skeleton is known, but several attempts have been made to reconstruct the vertebral column from partial skeletons. Kellogg 1936 estimated a total of 58 vertebrae, based on two partial and non-overlapping skeletons of B. cetoides from Alabama. More complete fossils uncovered in Egypt in the 1990s, allowed a more accurate estimation: the vertebral column of B. isis has been reconstructed from three overlapping skeletons to a total of 70 vertebrae with a vertebral formula interpreted as 7 cervical, 18 thoracic, 20 lumbar and sacral, and 25 caudal vertebrae. It can be assumed that the vertebral formula of B. cetoides is the same.[14]

Basilosaurus has an anguilliform (eel-like) body shape because of the elongation of the centra of the thoracic through anterior caudal vertebrae. In life, these vertebrae were filled with marrow, and, because of the enlarged size, this made them buoyant. From this it can be deduced that Basilosaurus swam predominantly in two dimensions at the sea surface, in contrast to the smaller Dorudon which was probably a diving, three-dimensional swimmer.[15] The skeletal anatomy of the tail suggests that a small fluke was probably present, which would have aided only vertical motion. Most reconstructions show a small, speculative dorsal fin similar to a rorqual whales's, but other reconstructions show a dorsal ridge."

Basilosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll let the language speak for itself. There is again, a whole lot of speculation and assumption going on.

Looks like Basilosaurus was never a reptile to start with....unless fluked tails are found on reptiles? And vertebra which made them buoyant?......sounds like this critter was designed for life in the water.

So tell me, why does a whale have a body-structure so remarkably similar to Ungulates(cows, pigs, giraffes, hippos)? If it was a being created as-is, why is it full of left-over parts? They've got vestigial hind-legs. They have finger-nails on their flippers.

How do they know that when there are no complete skeletons? How do they know what anything looked like just from a few bones? "Reconstruction" is what someone imagines a creature looked like...right? They aren't photographs.

Actually, scratch that. Why the **** does it have fingers in the first place?

Beats me why an animal that never had fingers in the first place would have them at all. The 'early models' had hooves apparently. So do hooves just naturally turn into fingers so they can turn into flippers after a few million years?

The Bible says nothing about the details of any animal that was extinct before we got here. So perhaps the "fingers" were like the struts in a kite that give it strength and lift and hold the structure together. Do you believe that if we wore mittens for the next few million years that we might end up with something similar?

Why do all sea-going mammals have individual digits within a meat-glove hand? Fish don't. They've just got flippers.

God designed them that way...what a dumb question!

Fish do not have the body size of a whale......bony struts within the flipper of such huge creatures makes sense to me. I am amazed that it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh they are funny all right.....I found this was interesting....I do look up various sites to see what all the fuss is about.

This is from Wiki......

No complete Basilosaurus skeleton is known, but several attempts have been made to reconstruct the vertebral column from partial skeletons. Kellogg 1936 estimated a total of 58 vertebrae, based on two partial and non-overlapping skeletons of B. cetoides from Alabama. More complete fossils uncovered in Egypt in the 1990s, allowed a more accurate estimation: the vertebral column of B. isis has been reconstructed from three overlapping skeletons to a total of 70 vertebrae with a vertebral formula interpreted as 7 cervical, 18 thoracic, 20 lumbar and sacral, and 25 caudal vertebrae. It can be assumed that the vertebral formula of B. cetoides is the same.[14]

Basilosaurus has an anguilliform (eel-like) body shape because of the elongation of the centra of the thoracic through anterior caudal vertebrae. In life, these vertebrae were filled with marrow, and, because of the enlarged size, this made them buoyant. From this it can be deduced that Basilosaurus swam predominantly in two dimensions at the sea surface, in contrast to the smaller Dorudon which was probably a diving, three-dimensional swimmer.[15] The skeletal anatomy of the tail suggests that a small fluke was probably present, which would have aided only vertical motion. Most reconstructions show a small, speculative dorsal fin similar to a rorqual whales's, but other reconstructions show a dorsal ridge."

Basilosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll let the language speak for itself. There is again, a whole lot of speculation and assumption going on.

Looks like Basilosaurus was never a reptile to start with....unless fluked tails are found on reptiles? And vertebra which made them buoyant?......sounds like this critter was designed for life in the water.




How do they know that when there are no complete skeletons? How do they know what anything looked like just from a few bones? "Reconstruction" is what someone imagines a creature looked like...right? They aren't photographs.



Beats me why an animal that never had fingers in the first place would have them at all. The 'early models' had hooves apparently. So do hooves just naturally turn into fingers so they can turn into flippers after a few million years?

The Bible says nothing about the details of any animal that was extinct before we got here. So perhaps the "fingers" were like the struts in a kite that give it strength and lift and hold the structure together. Do you believe that if we wore mittens for the next few million years that we might end up with something similar?



God designed them that way...what a dumb question!

Fish do not have the body size of a whale......bony struts within the flipper of such huge creatures makes sense to me. I am amazed that it doesn't make sense to you.

Fish do get to the size of whales, look up the whale shark.

 

[JayJayDee]

Fish do get to the size of whales, look up the whale shark.

And whale sharks have the same "fingers" as a whale....but the tail of a shark....go figure!

What were the dorsal fins before they became dorsal fins I wonder?

 

[Bunyip]

And whale sharks have the same "fingers" as a whale....but the tail of a shark....go figure!

What were the dorsal fins before they became dorsal fins I wonder?

Erm....dude sharks don't have bones. So no, they do not have the same 'fingers as a whale' they don't have bones at all.

 

[JayJayDee]

So we are to abandon all sense of knowledge? Do you trust your doctor to fix you or are you worried that his knowledge will be proven wrong one day? What about the gas in your car? Will it suddenly stop working? Are you ever worried that the theory of gravity may be wrong and we might fly off the earth at any moment?

You already know how silly that is.

Why do we need to abandon all sense of knowledge to believe in a Creator? You assume that science and God are incompatible...I assure you they are not.

Evolutionary science is merely a "religion" for those who have no religion. It suits people to lose a God who might require something from them.
Alternately it is the compromise that some reach when they swallow science's explanations as fact, and feel the need to surrender some of their beliefs to this other belief system. I will not wave a white flag to science.

I do not have to surrender anything to believe in an intelligent and powerful Creator. The knowledge he provides in his word is sufficient for those who have a relationship with him. If you have never known him, you will never understand what I mean. Nor will you understand why the world is the way it is.

And if you have such a low opinion of the human ability to interpret information ( we agree but I think on different subject matter) why would you ever assume to know what the creator wants or has said? Humans are such bumbling buffoons in your opinion that you wouldn't know which way was up if god made you a youtube instructional how to video.

You are as ignorant about God as you accuse me of being about science.

How many life threatening situation on earth at present are the direct result of man's misuse of science?

How about we start with atomic weapons?....and nuclear power plants that have no way to safely dispose of their waste, except to turn it into more weapons of mass destruction?

Food crops are poisoned by deadly pesticides and herbicides that are consumed by unsuspecting people buying produce from their supermarket. Food is grown in biologically dead soil, making mineral deficiency a major factor in lifestyle diseases.

Air pollution....water pollution...the plastics that are clogging up vast areas of oceans and killing a great many marine creatures.

The drugs that are used to treat disease, consumed by the ton in the human populations around the world, that end up in sewerage treatment plants and are dumped into the oceans causing malformation in marine creatures.

The hormones fed to poultry and cattle that end up causing problems to human growth and early onset of puberty.

Science has taken planet earth to the brink of disaster. Climate change and man's mismanagement of our earth will be our undoing if we do not act to put a stop to what science is doing to the only home we have.

Why do I have a problem with science? Because everything in the natural world is recycled in a beautiful system that is designed to replenish the earth and clean up waste without anyone having to lift a finger. God put all those systems into operation and he designed them to successfully perpetuate the processes that he put in place, without any intervention from him.

Man, on the other hand, has polluted everything he's touched. When man ignorantly interferes with the eco-system, disaster follows. Look back over the last few centuries and see where science has led us.....the planet is heaving under the weight of man's arrogance and greed and interference. Yet he refuses to stop what he's doing.

By the views of those who have dedicated their life to the study and understanding of our universe. By anyone who can take the time and effort to learn it. We don't know 100% if we are right. But there is no evidence to the contrary at this time and so long as 2+2 keeps = 4 I don't feel the need to change it.

We are all free to believe and accept whatever we wish. You are entitled to keep your views but they do not impress me one little bit.

There is no evidence that the Bible is correct. There is no evidence that any religion is correct and the fact that you throw out every human achievement based upon your personal or cultural interpretation of a book written by men over the course of several hundred years at least 2k years ago and then re-compiled by other men (into several different cannons based upon specific religion and sect) and then translated seems foolish to me.

Of course it does.....if you have never had a relationship with God, this is not surprising at all.

I have confidence that the God who has the power to create the universe, has the power to preserve his own instruction manual. You may not think so. But I believe it contains more wisdom than all the science used in man's world.

You are correct. The more we learn the more we find we don't know. Every question answered raises 10 more. That is the nature of science and that has always been the nature of science and the pursuit of knowledge. However there is zero evidence to suggest that your "god" even exists much less has all the answers and even less of a chance that if such a god existed and had the answers, conveyed them to humanity in any sense of the word.

There is plenty of evidence for us....you just can't see it and will not acknowledge it. That is your right of choice.

But we all know deep in our hearts that the life we live, is not the life we are programmed for. Science may satisfy a few whims, but it has caused more harm than good.

Why do you think we all have a collective expectation that life should be so much better than it is? Why do we see the inhumanity being expressed in the world today and want to stop all this rot? Yet no one is.....

The Bible explains all of what is happening right now and tells us what the outcome will be. Believe it or not. God forces no one to listen.

It will all conclude exactly as the Bible says it will....with us or without us.

 

[psychoslice]

Is this a comedy thread ?.

 

[philbo]

And whale sharks have the same "fingers" as a whale....but the tail of a shark....go figure!

That's a whale flipper - a quick google image search shows it on many pages of whale anatomy.

Googling "whale shark fin" also shows this image, because google isn't that discerning.You're going to have to try harder..

 

[JayJayDee]

That's a whale flipper - a quick google image search shows it on many pages of whale anatomy.

Googling "whale shark fin" also shows this image, because google isn't that discerning.You're going to have to try harder..

Funny thing is I tried a lot of pages and couldn't find a single whale shark fin that demonstrated its structure.

Please feel free to provide one of you know where to access an illustration or bone diagram.

 

[leibowde84]

Who said it has to do, i said the fetus will become a new different creation.

How so? It is merely an undeveloped human being. According to the law, this undeveloped human being has not achieved "person-hood", based on the fact that the fetus does not have bodily autonomy, and is completely and directly dependent on the woman's organs/body, as it lives inside her. Nevertheless, the fetus is still a human being ... it is merely undeveloped.

 

[dust1n]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design aren't opposites. There's no actual dichotomy here.