Intelligent design, my version.

[AllanV]

That's great if you can prove god exist. Can you?

As it stands that is opinion, and unsubstantiated.



Not for anything that exist outside mythology, is there?

Are you able to put any substance in your replies. You add nothing. What do you believe?
Can't you explain yourself.

 

[Lyndon]

There are plenty of credible Christian Universities, my father works at Loma Linda University and Medical Centre, where they were pioneers in infant heart transplants, and performed the first Baboon heart transplant(even though I am against that). I'm sure there are plenty of credible South American Universities that teach religion in classes, you are thinking solely of the USA, it would seem, In most of the rest of the world, separation of church and state is not a religion or written in their constitutions.

 

[FearGod]

No evolutionist has ever suggested that that occurred. Here is a reasonable scenario:

Simple Explanation of the Evolution of the Eye (from PBS/WGBH Educational Foundation)

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Richard Dawkins describes the evolution of the eye:

bla...bla....bla....bla, better than what you had said

 

[Bunyip]

WHAT!!!??


I already said.


Because I never said Darwin's "primordial soup" was a scientific theory as he or his contemporaries would have understood theory to mean, but rather that his descriptions on the origins of life are at odds with our evidence. This should be expected, given that Darwin was writing before Mendelian genetics or the structure uncovered by Watson & Crick.



That isn't how it works. At all. That's basic evolutionary biology you are contesting.

Buddy, you are not making any sense at all. You appear to be making a version of the 'If humans descend from monkeys- why are there still monkeys?' argument infamously popularised by Stephen Baldwin. Sure, primitive archaea are still abundant - but that is not an issue or problem for the theory of evolution or abiogenesis in any way whatsoever. You are also continuing to attack Darwin's imaginary descriptions of the origins of life (which henever made) - which strikes me as rather bizarre. Perhaps another member will engage with ypu on your idea, i'll leave it there.

 

[Bunyip]

the scientific evidence against theistic evolution

You have no scientific evidence FOR theistic evolution buddy, you need to find some before I have anything to disprove.

 

[FearGod]

If it was a regional flood, and being a prophet, Noah could have moved - on foot - to a higher (and safer) location, instead of building a large ark.

Good idea that God had missed, why not walking than building a large ark.

What about those who believe in God and wanted to be saved with Noah ?
What about babies and children ?
What about old women and men ?
What about the food that should be stored and to be enough for all ?

It is easier to walk than to have an ark, it is as stupid as to say it is better to travel by walking than to travel by a car.

 

[Lyndon]

Actually according to the Bible Mt Ararat was under water before the flood receded, so If Noah had walked up a mountain, he would have drowned.

 

[FearGod]

Actually according to the Bible Mt Ararat was under water before the flood receded, so If Noah had walked up a mountain, he would have drowned.

What he think of is finding another mountain than Mt Ararat and to reach it by walking better than building the ark.

 

[Sapiens]

Not being an expert I have watched presentations by some prominent scientists and there were many examples of how complex arrangements needed more than one part to compliment the whole all together at the same time.

"at the same time" is a strawman fallacy that you just created or cribbed off some fool; would you care to provide an example?

But it is a difficult subject and not that much of an interest to me to study it to the depth required.

So, this (your satement), "I am interested in what evolution is because how could a single cell need or decide it would change into an eye for instance. Would the first ever cell have all the information for every combination ever possible. Or is it simply mutations occurring because of some pressure out of the environment." Was BS just written to waste my time? Thanks.

The odds of life occurring and developing the way it has are hard to fathom. Scientists once said life should not exist at all but here it is.

No, actually it is no hard to fathom. What scientists said that ("life should not exist at all but here it ") and when? I smell an unreferenced quote mine.

 

[Sapiens]

Not being an expert I have watched presentations by some prominent scientists and there were many examples of how complex arrangements needed more than one part to compliment the whole all together at the same time.

"at the same time" is a strawman fallacy that you just created or cribbed off some fool; would you care to provide an example?

But it is a difficult subject and not that much of an interest to me to study it to the depth required.

So, this (your statement), "I am interested in what evolution is because how could a single cell need or decide it would change into an eye for instance. Would the first ever cell have all the information for every combination ever possible. Or is it simply mutations occurring because of some pressure out of the environment." Was BS just written to waste my time? Thanks.

The odds of life occurring and developing the way it has are hard to fathom. Scientists once said life should not exist at all but here it is.

No, actually it is no hard to fathom. What scientists said that ("life should not exist at all but here it ") and when? I smell an unreferenced quote mine.

 

[Sapiens]

God is able and ready to reach or back away from any person where they stand.

Unsubstantiated claim, the same can be said for the pink unicorn.

The only reason there is any survival is because God exists. If a person is no use to God they are no use at all.

Unsubstantiated claim, the same can be said for the pink unicorn.

There are aspects in the self that are ruled from with in the mind and sit behind the personality.

Unsubstantiated claim

It is easier to see fault in others than in own self.

Good advice, you should consider taking it.

This ruler has a kingdom with subjects and determines behavior in all endeavor from family dysfunction to war, risk taking to accidents. His methods are obvious but cannot be resisted and all outcomes are seen.

Unsubstantiated claim, the same can be said for the pink unicorn.

There is evidence in outcomes.

Unsubstantiated claim, complete BS.

The kingdom of God offers immortality and enables a breaking free of the kingdom of Satan in the self and empowered personality.
A new nature if taken up is free of encumbering and debilitating personality flaws.

I think that is downright delusional.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Buddy, you are not making any sense at all. You appear to be making a version of the 'If humans descend from monkeys- why are there still monkeys?' argument

That is just because you don't know enough about evolutionary theory to realize how wrong you are and how little you have understand what I said. I fully, absolutely, and completely agree that evolutionary theory is correct and the kind of simplistic, ignorant arguments like the example you gave are laughable. However, you apparently don't know enough about the subject to differentiate the type of arguments you think I made from that which I did, which means you don't really understand the theory itself. That is to be expected. Having claimed to be an expert historian, you turned out to be an expert in nothing, but none of your claims come close to anything remotely resembling experience in the sciences or evolutionary biology.

 

[Sapiens]

There are plenty of credible Christian Universities, my father works at Loma Linda University and Medical Centre, where they were pioneers in infant heart transplants, and performed the first Baboon heart transplant(even though I am against that). I'm sure there are plenty of credible South American Universities that teach religion in classes, you are thinking solely of the USA, it would seem, In most of the rest of the world, separation of church and state is not a religion or written in their constitutions.

All creditable universities, Christian or otherwise, teach evolution in their biology department. If they don't they would be creditable in the judgement of all the other institutions of higher learning. It has reached the point that is a definitional thing.

 

[Bunyip]

That is just because you don't know enough about evolutionary theory to realize how wrong you are and how little you have understand what I said. I fully, absolutely, and completely agree that evolutionary theory is correct and the kind of simplistic, ignorant arguments like the example you gave are laughable. However, you apparently don't know enough about the subject to differentiate the type of arguments you think I made from that which I did, which means you don't really understand the theory itself. That is to be expected. Having claimed to be an expert historian, you turned out to be an expert in nothing, but none of your claims come close to anything remotely resembling experience in the sciences or evolutionary biology.

Not interested in your usual insults and personal attacks mate. As I said, perhaps another member here is interested in exploring your idea, I'm not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ignorance can be so sad, So verrry sad. Especially when it's presented as a truth.

You make the concept of free will use a logic of being forced. That makes you ignorant about .... basically every subject where freedom applies. A list of subjects so long, I will not begin to write it.

 

[Lyndon]

Lets just sit back and let the evolutionary theorists battle it out between themselves, Mohammad!!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Lets just sit back and let the evolutionary theorists battle it out between themselves, Mohammad!!

Uh no, we also have a fight between us. I do not see you talk about the existence of God on an explicitly subjective basis, although you do say it cannot be proven either way. But then you talk about faith in regards to factual issues which you simply do not have sufficient evidence for.

It is like this, the "atheistic hordes", have basically rejected subjectivity altogether, like the stereotype of mr Spock. Then we get social darwinists who basically assert as pseudoscientifc fact what is good and evil.

But if a creationist asserts as fact that God exists, or that there is some evidence that God could possibly exist, then they would have rejected subjectivity also. They would have made the existence of God into a matter of fact issue, instead of a matter of opinion. It does not matter if you say it is a factual issue, but I do not have evidence, or to say it is a factual issue, and I do have the evidence. The objective measuring attitude is 100 percent different from the subjective faith attitude.

How subjectivity works is that it is choosing about what it is that chooses. You make decisions, you have emotions in your heart with which you make the decisions. I can only reach a conclusion about what emotions you have by deciding it. That way any statement I make about your emotions, is also a statement about my own emotions, because in deciding I express my own emotions.

So the line between matters of opinion, and matters of fact, is between what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, opinion, and the resulting decision, fact.

We therefore can have science about how things are chosen, but what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do is categorically a matter of opinion.

 

[Lyndon]

Allah is absolute proven fact to me 100%, I was just talking in atheist terms, I cannot prove Allah exist to them, only to me, and no, I believe Allah could possibly create world in 6 days if he wanted to, I don't know how world was created, but I have 100% faith Allah was involved.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Allah is absolute proven fact to me 100%, I was just talking in atheist terms, I cannot prove Allah exist to them, only to me, and no, I believe Allah could possibly create world in 6 days if he wanted to, I don't know how world was created, but I have 100% faith Allah was involved.

You have not understood anything I've written. By saying Allah is 100 percent proven fact, it means you have 0 percent faith, and you are an atheist. What is required for a muslim is 100 percent opinion that Allah exists.

 

[Lyndon]

That's what I meant, I have 100% faith Allah exists, It is proven to me He is real.

What I meant by saying I was talking in atheist terms, when I said in previous discussion "you cannot prove 100% God is real or doesn't exist", TO THEM, not to me