• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Yes isn't it amazing. Natural selection can design. We can even see these traits and behaviors evolve over time.

LOL......now tell me which one of us believes in fantasy? :D

What produces iridescence in a bird's feathers?

How does a gecko walk up a glass window?

What creates the strength in a spider's web?

You know the science of bio-mimetics? Humans copy the complex designs of things in nature. Where did nature get its designs to copy? Science cannot copy them without understanding how and why they work. This field of science requires intelligent and imaginative minds, and yet no intelligence or imagination was needed to produce them in nature? Don't you find that a little strange?

Many scientists accept ID. It makes so much more sense that the "series of fortunate accidents" and "beneficial mutations" scenario. :p

Why is it so hard to eat crow? :rolleyes:
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
LOL......now tell me which one of us believes in fantasy? :D

What produces iridescence in a bird's feathers?

How does a gecko walk up a glass window?

What creates the strength in a spider's web?

You know the science of bio-mimetics? Humans copy the complex designs of things in nature. Where did nature get its designs to copy? Science cannot copy them without understanding how and why they work. This field of science requires intelligent and imaginative minds, and yet no intelligence or imagination was needed to produce them in nature? Don't you find that a little strange?

Many scientists accept ID. It makes so much more sense that the "series of fortunate accidents" and "beneficial mutations" scenario. :p

Why is it so hard to eat crow? :rolleyes:
What? Natural selection was explained by Darwin 150 years or so ago - you should read it, and yes it is a particularly less 'strange' explanation than the magical alternative you offer. ID has yet to offer even a testable hypothesis by the way, let alone an alternative theory.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I'm confused jayjaydee. You said that God created these rules before - if he created natural selection, what is so hard to believe about it being amazing? Intelligent design would be redundant if what you said before is true.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
"In the beginning God created....." This is what I believe. If you have problems with the flood story, it is because we do not have all the details. God simply doesn't supply them, although I don't know what good it would do....no one would believe him anyway. Man has no real explanation for so many things....though he thinks he does. He is good at theorising...that is a fact.

The "luminaries" are placed there for a purpose.

The earth is just the right distance from the sun, the right size and the right shape. It has just the right mixture of gases to facilitate life, and it spins on its axis at just the right speed and angle......but this all just happened by accident according to science. Look at the pictures from space and see which planet is the only one living.

The moon is designed to reflect light from the sun....its surface being mainly glass. Yet its light is the stuff of poetry, love songs and lunacy. It is responsible for the movement of the tides in vast oceans and who knows what else. But no one put it there according to science. Just random chance.

I can't go into the random chance scenario without putting on the brakes....sorry. Things that exhibit exquisite design require an intelligent designer. I didn't find my wristwatch or my computer under a bush. I didn't find my house fully constructed out in a field either. If these things that are the puny inventions of man required an intelligent designer and manufacturer, why do the much larger and more complex structures in nature and the universe NOT require them?

If you cant answer the simple questions, why bother with the hard ones? Who cares how life changed, if you don't know how it began?

Complicated answers do not address the very simple first cause of everything. Life itself did not spring out of nowhere.
Science avoids that question because it can provide no answers, and to acknowledge a Creator would force them to surrender their own precious knowledge....even though it proves nothing that God didn't already tell us.


""In the beginning God created....." This is what I believe"

That is fine as a belief. But when it contradicts all the actual facts its a problem.

"If you have problems with the flood story"

For one, you keep saying this like if I have a problem, when in fact its evidence from a lot of different ways. One ice core samples going back a million years.

But


Antarctic Hills Haven't Seen Water in 14 Million Years


Water has not flowed across Antarctica's Friis Hills for 14 million years, researchers reported Tuesday (Oct. 29) at the Geological Society of America's annual meeting in Denver.

The Friis Hills rise 2,000 feet (600 meters) above Antarctica's Taylor Valley, one of the "Dry Valleys" west of McMurdo Sound. Fossils show tundra mosses and a lake once covered the flat-topped hills, when Earth's climate was warmer more than 14 million years ago. Now, thanks to blocking by nearby mountains, cold temperatures and strong winds that suck moisture from the air, the aptly named Dry Valleys receive little to no measurable rain or snow. (Sometimes, snow drifts in from nearby hills.)

Fossils found in ancient lake sediments on Antarctica's Friis Hills.
Credit: Adam Lewis, NDSU
graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, looked for traces of a radioactive isotope called beryllium-10 in lake sediments on the Friis Hills. This rare beryllium isotope, which has more neutrons than the stable version, forms when cosmic rays collide with oxygen and nitrogen atoms. Beryllium-10 decays on a predictable time scale, allowing geochemists to estimate the age of sediments containing the isotope. [The 10 Driest Places on Earth]

Antarctic Hills Haven't Seen Water in 14 Million Years

There is another place in Chile in the driest desert on Earth where it hasn't rained more then 2 inches in over 23 million years.

How The Earth Was Made S01E06 Driest Place On Earth


There was no global flood for a fact, the biggest was about 13 thousand years ago in the NW called the

"Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula Floods ...
Between 80,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago ice sheets called the "Wisconsin Glaciation" covered much of North America, including Northern Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Towards the end of this glaciation a large ice dam blocked the Clark Fork River in the Idaho Panhandle, creating "Glacial Lake Missoula". This lake was a massive lake 2,000 feet deep filling the valleys of western Montana. It stretched eastward more than 200 miles and, at its maximum height and extent, contained more than 500 cubic miles of water - more water than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario combined. Periodically, the ice dam would fail, resulting in a large catastrophic flood of ice- and dirt-filled water which rushed across northern Idaho and eastern and central Washington, down the Columbia River, through the Columbia River Gorge, and finally poured into the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Columbia River. Flood waters filled the Willamette River Valley, reaching Eugene, Oregon, more than 100 miles away. When Lake Missoula burst through the ice dam and exploded downstream, it did so at a rate 10 times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world.

The Columbia River - Missoula Floods


vt_map.jpg



"Man has no real explanation for so many things"

Man has a better explanation for a lot of things people haven't learn yet either. Or ignore evidence because they hold belief over the facts. We have learned a ton of information. Evolution is a done deal and has been since the 1800's basically yet there are still people who don't have a clue about it or refuse to except it. If there is a God,the said God used evolution. Not just biological but the whole universe has evolved.

We know how our moon formed. We know how the dinosaurs died and how that opened the door for mammals such as ourselves. We also know no humans lived when they live and that there was another huge group of animals before the dinosaurs that also went extinct.


Before Dinosaurs - Pelycosaurs, Archosaurs, Therapsids

"
Like archeologists discovering the ruins of a previously unknown civilization buried deep beneath an ancient city, dinosaur enthusiasts are sometimes astonished to learn that entirely different kinds of reptiles once ruled the earth, tens of millions of years before famous dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex, Velociraptor andStegosaurus. For approximately 120 million years--from the Carboniferous to
the middle Triassic periods--terrestrial life was dominated by the pelycosaurs, archosaurs, and therapsids (the so-called "mammal-like reptiles") that preceded the dinosaurs.


Before Dinosaurs - Pelycosaurs, Archosaurs, Therapsids

The "luminaries" are placed there for a purpose.

Its odd you use old bible terms like "kinds" and "luminaries." The bible isn't and never was a science book nor did they have the modern technology we have, they didn't have a Hubble telescope. We use to get a terabyte a year of information from all our observations and technology of the universe and now we get that in one day.

1 TB = 1000000000000bytes = 1012bytes = 1000 gigabytes.


"The earth is just the right distance from the sun, the right size and the right shape. It has just the right mixture of gases to facilitate life, and it spins on its axis at just the right speed and angle"

Yes, but ti didn't just happen that way, again when it formed it had a natural gas atmosphere and so much radiation it would have burnt any life to a crisp. It took billions of years to develop an oxygen atmosphere from cynobateria who evolved photosynthesis. Venus and Mars once had water and atmosphere's as well.

"right shape"

You know what planet accretion means? Or stellar accretion? The Earth started out as a bunch of small rocks dust and gas. Life would be very different as well if we didn't have a moon and that again was formed with a massive collision with another planet the size of Mars. Which is also part of "and it spins on its axis at just the right speed and angle" Because of the Planet theia colliding with the earth. The days also weren't 24 hours. The moon is drifting away from the Earth as well and the sun will go red giant in about 5 billion years.

"It has just the right mixture of gases to facilitate life,"

That is because of EVOLUTION. We know this for a fact as well. God must be giving us more clues and facts then you seem to know personally.


The moon reflects light from both the Sun and the Earth, it is not a light source. There are lots of moons in our solar system. Ours is odd in how it formed, compared to other moons in the solar system.


2846_eb9fc349601c69352c859c1faa287874.png


Earth seen from behind Saturn by the Cassini spacecraft.

"But no one put it there according to science. Just random chance."

There is a ton of random chance in the universe and things colliding by the zillions, actually the number would be way way higher, everyday.

You should watch this on other plants suns and orbits.

How the Universe Works Extreme Orbits



"poetry, love songs" are human conceptions. They have nothing to do with how our moon formed.

"why do the much larger and more complex structures in nature and the universe NOT require them?"

That is a question not an answer, you don't answer the question with already thinking you know the answer. There is no evidence and in fact the evidence for a designer, would be abetter design, why do we have to eat and not just get energy from the sun? Why do we have more bacteria cells then human ones in our body? Why do we have to carry around with us trillions of bacteria to digest our food?

Scientists and a lot of humans have curiosity and spend their entire lives asking questions and finding answers and science has done well with that method. You should be glad for that since you have many things and are alive because of what science has done for you. Including your wristwatch computer and house and much more. Religion didn't build those science did.

"f you cant answer the simple questions, why bother with the hard ones? Who cares how life changed, if you don't know how it began?"

So in your view we should give up all medicine and biological breakthroughs that save millions of life's because we don't know how life began even though we know for a fact it evolved? That doesn't make sense.

"Complicated answers do not address the very simple first cause of everything. Life itself did not spring out of nowhere.
Science avoids that question because it can provide no answers, and to acknowledge a Creator would force them to surrender their own precious knowledge....even though it proves nothing that God didn't already tell us."

This is wrong, science tackles easy and hard questions everyday. It does not use supernatural explanations and just say god did it, or a lot of people would be dead from diseases, starvation and many other problems. There are also many religions and its arrogant to think one is right and all others are wrong or that any of them are right or wrong. No one knows, or at least no one can show anything supernatural.. We know man uses them for many reasons though throughout history, a lot of times to explain things they could before science. We don't stone people to death in the US anymore or do a lot of things they did in the Bible using God, because now we view it as wrong.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
KENNETH R. MILLER, a Roman Catholic who proved we are related to the apes by chromosome #2.

"KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is."
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.

Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial


Its also as pointed out Christian creationism relabeled.

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution
The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.

"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the Church will admit. It will say that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity - Telegraph
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders
Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science


Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not conflict.

"[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator."
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

"Students' ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as 'scientific' will give them false ideas about scientific methods and criteria."
Central Conference of American Rabbis

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
Pope John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator…. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
"The Clergy Letter Project" signed by more than 10,000 Christian clergy members.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I support intelligent design by a powerful Creator

In a court of law it was deemed pseudoscience.

As it is a perversion of religious text, and you have no evidence of any kind in support.

Your position is no more "provable" as "fact" than mine is

Evolution is fact, and you personally don't get to pervert the science, or definition of a fact.

Evolution has been observed and you don't get to redefine that out of severe desperation and fanaticism.

Its also backed with factual DNA and fossil evidence.


Sorry no flood, and evolution is fact as gravity.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

  1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
  3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
  4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Nothing here you can change by perversion of evidence or facts.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
What? Natural selection was explained by Darwin 150 years or so ago - you should read it, and yes it is a particularly less 'strange' explanation than the magical alternative you offer. ID has yet to offer even a testable hypothesis by the way, let alone an alternative theory.

I guess that depends on who the audience is and what they believe to be true.

I do not find God as an intelligent designer any more "magical" than suggesting that blind accidental forces produced all life on earth....the "goldilocks" planet.

I believe in the supernatural and I understand it. The Bible explains it well. You can deny it if you like, but I find the idea of a Creator God very plausible....you may not. Many do not want to believe that we have a designer and maker....but disbelieving doesn't make him go away.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I guess that depends on who the audience is and what they believe to be true.

I do not find God as an intelligent designer any more "magical" than suggesting that blind accidental forces produced all life on earth....the "goldilocks" planet.

I believe in the supernatural and I understand it. The Bible explains it well. You can deny it if you like, but I find the idea of a Creator God very plausible....you may not. Many do not want to believe that we have a designer and maker....but disbelieving doesn't make him go away.
You are contradicting your self. Earlier you argued that god made the rules, not the mechanism - now you are arguing for ID, which would be redundant of god made the rules. Which is it?
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Jayjaydee

May I ask why you keep repeating the misconception that evolution is random accident? We have already addressed that, it is selection. Selection is not random accident.

Now you dismissed selection on the basis that it is 'amazing', but why wouldn't it be if god made the rules?
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

  1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
  3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
  4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Nothing here you can change by perversion of evidence or facts.

I believe that you are as indoctrinated as you think we Bible believers are. But that is just my opinion.

In a court of law it was deemed pseudoscience.

Who presided at this court? God or humans?
Who are humans to tell the inventor of science that creation isn't real science? :eek:

As it is a perversion of religious text, and you have no evidence of any kind in support.

"Perversion of the religious text"...who say so? Oh......Man again. :D Of course man is on the same level as God, especially men of science...who know all and see all.......all worship those men of science......sorry! no can do.

Evolution is fact, and you personally don't get to pervert the science, or definition of a fact.

Evolution has been observed and you don't get to redefine that out of severe desperation and fanaticism.

I believe that you are demonstrating your own desperation and fanaticism. :p

If you say its "fact" often enough, it must be true eh?

Its also backed with factual DNA and fossil evidence.

If you say so. Science is of course never wrong. o_O Failure to interpret the evidence correctly never happens.
Scientific fraud never happens either.....

Sorry no flood, and evolution is fact as gravity.

If you wish to believe that, go ahead. No one with a big stick is going to force you to believe otherwise. :)

But be careful who you trust....in a world ruled by the devil, a master of deception, nothing is as it appears.......but you don't believe in the devil either...do you? Oh well.......can't win 'em all. :rolleyes:
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Comparing designed things with creation is something we are told to do in the Bible
So then the Bible is telling you to compare God with humans, yet you shouldn't and can't.

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." - Hebrews 3:4
Faith in the Bible is one thing. Faith in God is another. Watch out so the Bible doesn't become your idol.

What that Bible verse is doing is thinking of God as a human. I was just told in a post today that I was wrong if I did it. Now... the Bible says that you can, but I can't. That's still unfair practice.

JayJayDee says I can't compare God with humans.

You tell me that we should compare God with humans because that's what the Bible says.

I can't discuss both of you on two different fronts when one says one thing and the other says the opposite. You two need to agree on one thing if this discussion should go forward, because right now, you two are contradicting each other.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Ah, now the twisting begins......Chubby Checker anyone? I'm showing my age now. :p

This is how things get bent out of shape. People imply what others have said creating strawmen where none existed. Tearing down a strawman of your own creation is not answering with a real response to what was said.

All I have presented as arguments are simple facts. They are the product of deduction with what is observed with the eye and common sense. You can be dazzled by science, but I am not. The words of men do not override or overrule the words of God.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Ah, now the twisting begins......Chubby Checker anyone? I'm showing my age now. :p

This is how things get bent out of shape. People imply what others have said creating strawmen where none existed. Tearing down a strawman of your own creation is not answering with a real response to what was said.

All I have presented as arguments are simple facts. They are the product of deduction with what is observed with the eye and common sense. You can be dazzled by science, but I am not. The words of men do not override or overrule the words of God.
What facts? You dismissed natural selection - one of the most evidenced hypothesis in all of human knowledge on the basis of it being 'amazing'. Where were the facts?
What are we twisting away from? The idea that stuff is amazing?
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
So then the Bible is telling you to compare God with humans, yet you shouldn't and can't.
Faith in the Bible is one thing. Faith in God is another. Watch out so the Bible doesn't become your idol.
What that Bible verse is doing is thinking of God as a human. I was just told in a post today that I was wrong if I did it. Now... the Bible says that you can, but I can't. That's still unfair practice.
JayJayDee says I can't compare God with humans.
You tell me that we should compare God with humans because that's what the Bible says.
I can't discuss both of you on two different fronts when one says one thing and the other says the opposite. You two need to agree on one thing if this discussion should go forward, because right now, you two are contradicting each other.

We can and we can not. Comparing depends on the topic.
Hebrews reasons that design requires a designer.
Genesis says we are made in God's image. So, in someways we have some of his traits that he chose to share with us that he did not share with animals, such as principled love, and a sense of justice.
On the other hand, we are reminded that we can't keep up with God's ability to discern and reason. Neither do we have all the facts nor the power to be able to take him to court over a legal matter.

"O the depth of God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgements are and beyond tracing out his ways are! For 'who has come to know Jehovah's mind, or who has become his adviser?'" - Romans 11:33,34

For a fact I know that this is so.
But how can mortal man be in the right in a case with God?
If someone wishes to argue with Him, (or "to take him to court.")
That one could not answer one of His questions in a thousand.
...
He does great and unsearchable things,
Wonderful things that cannot be counted.
...
If it is a matter of power, he is the strong one.
If it is a matter of justice, he says: 'Who can call me to account?' (Lit., "summon me.")
...
For he is not a man like me that I may answer him,
That we should go to court together.
There is no person to decide (or "no mediator.") between us,
Who could serve as our judge. (Lit., "put his hand upon us both.")
- Job 9:2,3,10,19,32,33

Look! These are just the fringes of his ways;
Only a faint whisper has been heard of him!
So who can understand his mighty thunder?
- Job 26:14
 
Last edited:
Top