• 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!

Supposedly, evolution produced the circulatory system in any creature. That is also impossible. It is just way too irreducibly complex to have evolve

S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Twilight Hue said:
Been through that when I was a Christian and I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Don't think being a Christian has anything to do with it friend nor anything to do with the Christian God for that matter ... whomever that might be. The Universe is telling us something .. and what ever that message is .. must go through a filter .. and it is through that filter that one percieves the message. If your filter is "Christianity" and assorted dogma .. you will interpret the message on the basis of that filter.

If not .. then by some other filter -- none of this changes the fact that the Universe is speaking .. and one of the things it tells us .. if viewed through the correct filter .. is that existence is eternal.

but lest we put cart before horse .. let us examine who exactly you think the Christian God is ? the one that you left at the alter when you ceased being a follower of HeyZeus .. the annointed one of God .. something like Cyrus .. cept that was Ahura Mazda ... or was it Marduk .. .. matters not cause neither of them is the God of Abe now is it .. and nor was it YHWH ..

Who is the Christian God that you been through .. left at the alter .. and now who or what have you turned to .. :)
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sargonski said:
Don't think being a Christian has anything to do with it friend nor anything to do with the Christian God for that matter ... whomever that might be. The Universe is telling us something .. and what ever that message is .. must go through a filter .. and it is through that filter that one percieves the message. If your filter is "Christianity" and assorted dogma .. you will interpret the message on the basis of that filter.

If not .. then by some other filter -- none of this changes the fact that the Universe is speaking .. and one of the things it tells us .. if viewed through the correct filter .. is that existence is eternal.

but lest we put cart before horse .. let us examine who exactly you think the Christian God is ? the one that you left at the alter when you ceased being a follower of HeyZeus .. the annointed one of God .. something like Cyrus .. cept that was Ahura Mazda ... or was it Marduk .. .. matters not cause neither of them is the God of Abe now is it .. and nor was it YHWH ..

Who is the Christian God that you been through .. left at the alter .. and now who or what have you turned to .. :)
Click to expand...
That's just personal interpretation. It's basically the same thing when theism was invented and first started , people look at nature and it's phenomenon that people had associated with a controlling element , usually in the form of a God or some kind of deity at times with exquisite detail yet absolutely cannot for the life of them, point anything to anybody anywhere.

By leaving theism, of which was introduced by people alone anyways, I haven't found any need to turn toward anything at all other than noting and acknowledging that change and the dynamics involved all around us is not a single force, but that of countless forces in dynamic flux, or or as Alan Watts puts it observationally , " The wigglyness of nature".
 
S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Twilight Hue said:
That's just personal interpretation. It's basically the same thing when theism was invented and first started , people look at nature and it's phenomenon that people had associated with a controlling element , usually in the form of a God or some kind of deity at times with exquisite detail yet absolutely cannot for the life of them, point anything to anybody anywhere.

By leaving theism, of which was introduced by people alone anyways, I haven't found any need to turn toward anything at all other than noting and acknowledging that change and the dynamics involved all around us is not a single force, but that of countless forces in dynamic flux, or or as Alan Watts puts it observationally , " The wigglyness of nature".
Click to expand...
Yes .. countless forces .. each force a God or unto itself ... even if a lesser God .. giving us the full range and continuum from Chaos to Order - and the Primordial ones.

It is no surprise why the ancients worshiped the Sun as a God.. creator and sustainer of all life on Earth .. along with Precious water and the firmament .. the Earth .. and lest we leave out the wind .. which brings the rains and the waves - the storms and lightning.

but have we not arrived back to theism ? Just through a different filter .. ?! -- do learn chess notation for further enlightenment and understanding.

Do you not worship the Sun ? I know I do ! :)
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sargonski said:
Yes .. countless forces .. each force a God or unto itself ... even if a lesser God .. giving us the full range and continuum from Chaos to Order - and the Primordial ones.

It is no surprise why the ancients worshiped the Sun as a God.. creator and sustainer of all life on Earth .. along with Precious water and the firmament .. the Earth .. and lest we leave out the wind .. which brings the rains and the waves - the storms and lightning.

but have we not arrived back to theism ? Just through a different filter .. ?! -- do learn chess notation for further enlightenment and understanding.

Do you not worship the Sun ? I know I do ! :)
Click to expand...
No I don't engage in anthropomorphism of the natural environment I live in, although I understand why people do that because giving such traits help them relate using themselves as a template.

While I regard the environment as an aspect of my own body and mind for which I am literally a part of, I do have the discernment to tell the difference between living thinking organisms and natural forces that are completely indifferent to one's thoughts and beliefs of which those very thoughts and beliefs will be once again, be consumed back into the forces of nature to which a new body and mine will rise from those forces, only to be consumed once again.

It's why I now follow eastern thoughts and philosophies instead of attributing beliefs that just anthropomorphize non-living aspects of nature into some kind of God or thinking being in order to help relate and cope with what must look sterile and indifferent for which it actually is.
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
exchemist said:
Nope. Quantum particles of matter have wavelengths, certainly, but that is rather different. Wavelengths are just one of the properties of waves, or wavelike entities.
Click to expand...
I would say it differently. Waves are wavelengths that give properties of what we see. It is driven by the purpose of the designer. The faith of the designer and/or observer controls what they do.


God spoke and watched it become
Faith is the substances of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Kenny said:
I would say it differently. Waves are wavelengths that give properties of what we see. It is driven by the purpose of the designer. The faith of the designer and/or observer controls what they do.


God spoke and watched it become
Faith is the substances of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Click to expand...
You can't have a wavelength, i.e. the length of a wave, without a wave, any more than you can have the height of a person without a person. the wave is the entity and the wavelength one of its properties (others being frequency, speed and amplitude).
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
exchemist said:
You can't have a wavelength, i.e. the length of a wave, without a wave, any more than you can have the height of a person without a person. the wave is the entity and the wavelength one of its properties (others being frequency, speed and amplitude).
Click to expand...
And what is a wave? An entity?… What is an entity.. a wave? Looking up “wave” you get “wave function”. A function of what?
 
Last edited:
K

Khabeni412

Member
I like how you post all this nonsense and no evidence. Irreducible complexity has been so thoroughly debunked even some creationists are embarrassed it's still used as an argument.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Esteban X said:
You're embarrassing yourself

Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity
www.bionity.com
Click to expand...
That was just a philosophy argument, a false one, that had no science whatsoever. So that means that irreducibly complex things cannot evolve,
Good job with that failure.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Esteban X said:
No example of irreducibly complex is actually irreducible. That is a fact
Click to expand...
That is just a pronouncement by you.
If you can document how it even happened once, showing all the new genes involved, where they even came from, and how that was able to make it through a population given sexual reproduction stops all of that, you would be the first.
 
Eddi

Eddi

Christianity
Premium Member
SavedByTheLord said:
That is just a pronouncement by you.
If you can document how it even happened once, showing all the new genes involved, where they even came from, and how that was able to make it through a population given sexual reproduction stops all of that, you would be the first.
Click to expand...
You know that such detail cannot ever be provided

You're trying to make the fact that such detail cannot be provided count against the scientific world view

That's very shoddy and not at all clever

It is not the brilliant inspired genius tactic to use in discussions that you obviously think it is

It's outright stupid

What you're doing is very transparent
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
SavedByTheLord said:
Supposedly, evolution produced the circulatory system in all creatures that have it. That is also impossible. It is just way too irreducibly complex to have evolved.

It is impossible that the circulatory system could have evolved in any creature.
Click to expand...
I believe that is true. Inheritance is not the same as evolution, so thanks for that.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Esteban X said:
No example of irreducibly complex is actually irreducible. That is a fact
Click to expand...
It doesn't actually matter.

It's just a fallacious argument from ignorance.
Even IF they would be able to find an example of which it isn't known how it could be reduced.... all they have at that point is literally not knowing how it can be reduced.

"I don't know how it can be reduced, therefor it can't" - textbook argument from ignorance.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
That is just a pronouncement by you.
If you can document how it even happened once, showing all the new genes involved, where they even came from, and how that was able to make it through a population given sexual reproduction stops all of that, you would be the first.
Click to expand...
See?

Literally acknowledging that IC is nothing but an argument from ignorance.


"you don't know how X evolved, therefor it didn't"


Textbook fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top