What's the term to describe this?

[Valjean]

Bacteria that causes death exists because of the fall of man. Its mutation not designed.

But this is a baseless, religious assertion. You have no hard data whatsoever to support this.

Weren't pathogenic bacteria infecting plants and animals long before the 'fall of man'; long before man even existed on this Earth?

 

[Skywalker]

But it is gradual. We see gradual changes to hearts, ears, eyes, kidneys, lungs, joints, &al through out nature. Each step functional.

Have you never in your life had a biology class? Do you not realize that there is a whole sequence of functional changes in different animals -- protozoa, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, &c?

This is just like the ridiculous assertion that an eye is irreducibly complex.

What's an example of those organs not existing?

You are talking about as it's developing. The blueprints for that already exist.

 

[Skywalker]

But this is a baseless, religious assertion. You have no hard data whatsoever to support this.

Weren't pathogenic bacteria infecting plants and animals long before the 'fall of man'; long before man even existed on this Earth?

What scientific evidence supports that?

 

[Valjean]

What scientific evidence supports that?

Fossil evidence and genetic sequences.

 

[Skywalker]

Fossil evidence and genetic sequences.

What about we can't live without the trees and vice versa?

 

[Valjean]

What's an example of those organs not existing?

You are talking about as it's developing. The blueprints for that already exist.

The DNA 'blueprints' evolved and changed over time.

Heart?: How Open vs. Closed Circulatory Systems Function
Not all animals have eyes. There's a functional, developmental sequence: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
Kidneys: Kidneys | Zoology for IAS, IFoS and other competitive exams
Lungs?: The Classification of Respiratory Systems throughout Evolution - Respiratory Systems of the Nine Phylums
There's a lungless salamander that lives not far from me.

Not all animals are mammals like us. Different animals have different organs.

 

[Valjean]

What about we can't live without the trees and vice versa?

I'm perfectly aware of the complex, interwoven ecology of our Earth. I don't see any disagreement here.

 

[Skywalker]

The DNA 'blueprints' evolved and changed over time.

Heart?: How Open vs. Closed Circulatory Systems Function
Not all animals have eyes. There's a functional, developmental sequence: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
Kidneys: Kidneys | Zoology for IAS, IFoS and other competitive exams
Lungs?: The Classification of Respiratory Systems throughout Evolution - Respiratory Systems of the Nine Phylums
There's a lungless salamander that lives not far from me.

Not all animals are mammals like us. Different animals have different organs.

What do lungless salamanders have to do with mammal evolution?

 

[Skywalker]

I'm perfectly aware of the complex, interwoven ecology of our Earth. I don't see any disagreement here.

Why don't you think that that hints at a designer?

 

[Valjean]

What do lungless salamanders have to do with mammal evolution?

Do you believe we were magically poofed into existence, de novo? If so, then sequences of change are illusions and have nothing to do with us.
This is not what the evidence indicates, though.

 

[Valjean]

Why don't you think that that hints at a designer?

Because other, natural, non-intentional mechanisms for these changes exist, and they're observable and testable, unlike Goddidit.

 

[Skywalker]

Do you believe we were magically poofed into existence, de novo? If so, then sequences of change are illusions and have nothing to do with us.
This is not what the evidence indicates, though.

I agree with you that there are sequences of changes in terms of variations within the same species.

 

[Skywalker]

Because other, natural, non-intentional mechanisms for these changes exist, and they're observable and testable, unlike Goddidit.

Not everything has to be seen to be believed. Natural and non intentional mechanisms don't explain why all the variables needed for earth to support life are so unlikely to exist on their own.

 

[McBell]

Bacteria that causes death exists because of the fall of man. Its mutation not designed.

What did they "mutate" from?

 

[Skywalker]

What did they "mutate" from?

From other forms of bacteria.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with you that there are sequences of changes in terms of variations within the same species.

Again, why can't small changes accumulate. This 'evolution limited to kind' is creationist nonsense. What possible mechanism would limit changes to whatever a kind is?
We observe new species emerging, so a kind must be some larger taxonomic category. How is it defined?

Not everything has to be seen to be believed. Natural and non intentional mechanisms don't explain why all the variables needed for earth to support life are so unlikely to exist on their own.

How do we know how unlikely life generating conditions are, with a sample size of one? How do we know other conditions wouldn't give rise to entirely different, non water/carbon based life? There are extremophiles even here on Earth, and a phosphine signature was discovered on 800 degree F. Venus just three months ago.
Life, at least on Earth, adapts to whatever conditions it finds itself in. There's nothing but faith to indicate either design or a designer.

Automaticity: Science has discovered many of the automatic steps involved, they become clearer and better evidenced every day, and new ones are always being described. Magical explanations have been in retreat since the scientific revolution. Never have we found a phenomenon we believe is entirely outside of nature.

There is no reason except religious faith to posit magical mechanisms for things we don't yet understand. I don't think most religious grasp how much we really know about the phenomena they find so mystifying, or understand how we know what we know. They conflate scientific knowledge with religious faith.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. Are you referring to us having a six sense?

Six sense? Why only six? The Five (and More) Senses
What sense tells you that you are missing something from your life? Or do you think the only things that could be missing from your life are food, drink, and sleep?

I said non-man made things like flowers and rainbows and rocks (earth) are assumed to have a creator not natural things like using what people assume to be god's creation to build things like pyramids etc. I'm not familiar with how archeologist prove the originator of these things but I'm sure, very sure, it wasn't god.

Please don't go there again. I did not put these here to say Goddidit.

I don't see they are ahead of their time. But it looks like from reading they don't know who built it other than suggesting (assuming) farmers did. I know it's complex but I never did get the just because we don't understand something, it needs to be greater than us.

Whether they are ahead of their time or not, is unimportant. Don't lose the focus.

How do you compare this to a rainbow or the body developing brain cancer?

Huh?

would have a lot more evidence (though I'm not familiar with the field) to back up their suggestion than looking at the building and automatically concluding there is a "grand" creator behind it (the creation of rocks etc not the structure of the rocks).

Evidence of what? I'm trying to figure out how you test that a structure is built by man rather than aliens, or some kind of creature.

I spoke to soon.

If that's what it says, I suppose not. Are archeologist saying that anyone other than man could have built it?

I don't see anything written to say they made any conclusions.... other than to assume mandidit.

'cause god is a totally different story.

Why?

I can't deny it's pretty profound. I wanted to be an archeologist myself awhile back because of it. But the connection between builder and built in this case highly suggests humans. Saying that nature-tree, rainbow-suggests god is really pushing it.

You have not explained why. I'm listening. Not that I am saying God did it, but I want to hear from you, why does it have to be man.

I'm not sure where you getting at.

Just take your focus off Goddidit, and it can't be, and that might help you get it.

I heard of radiocarbon dating. That's a good way to test the age of something. But god? Nature?

Since god is not something you can see to suggest it's nature (like human being) it's hard to state as fact that what you see as a tree is created by something in particular god. The supernaturalisity (made up word) of it makes the connection very extraneous as compared to something build we're trying to find the builder of.

Okay. Let's use this.
Do you see the wind? Yet you don't think it must be a hand moving the leaves.
When you sit and watch Opera Winfrey, in your house, you don't think she is actually sitting in your living room.
Because you don't see God, does not make him any less likely.
Man made instruments allow you to detect things you cannot directly see.
To conclude that nothing exist outside of the earth, or the universe, that you cannot see, would not be reasonable. Would it?
If we had the ability to see the invisible, we would be sure that we are not seeing an invisible man's hand producing the effect we see.
Men of the past knew of the unseen one, and they were directed to write it down, for the purpose of informing others. (Romans 15:4) . . .For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction. . .
Moses "continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible." (Hebrews 11:27) Jesus Christ explained the unseen one, and represented him. (Colossians 1:15) . . .He is the image of the invisible God. . .

The Bible says also, that what may be known about the unseen one, is clearly evident.
(Romans 1:20) For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. . .

So, we also have the instruments which scientists themselves use, to figure out what is. Our perception - our brain. This allows us to see the invisible... the cause of the effect.

How can you build a flower as you would a building?

Molecules.

Also, which reminds me of another question I asked someone else, if there is a designer creating, how can you not see this creating today-from seed to flower, child to adult, and so have you?

Not sure if I understand the question correctly, but I will try.
Maybe the answer to your question is somewhere in the answer to this question ... If you came from an ape ancestor, how is it that we don't see that process taking place?
However, if I had the ability to make a seed, with everything in it, needed to grow a tree, with seed of the same kind, I am sure that all the seeds from the tree that grows, will have the potential to grow into trees.
So I would basically only need to design two seeds - one producing male tree, and one female.
Same with a human - (Genesis 1:27, 28) . . .male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth . . .
(Acts 17:26) . . .he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth. . .

The interval in time between first creation and now shouldn't stop god from creating, true?

Why would God need to create anything after finishing the creation of what was needed? We have many varieties of animals, people, trees, foods, etc... all from small beginnings.
Don't let your mouth water.

Reportedly, in India alone, there are around 283 types of mangoes, out of which only 30 are well-known. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) facility on Old Cutler Road in Coral Gables, Florida, has about 400 varieties of mangoes and is one of the largest depositories of mango plant cultures in the world. The USDA collection was originally believed to have over 500 varieties of mango germplasm, but genetic testing showed several duplicates. In the United States,

When a watchmaker finishes his job, there is no need for him to add anything to that watch. It will work as long as it's suppose to, or until it is broken.

Not with watches and machines, but I get what you're saying. When I see a painting, I wonder how the artist created such a masterpiece but I don't translate that to nature. When I'm in the forest on the trails, since trees etc aren't man-made, that assumption of creator/creation doesn't come to mind. It takes life as it is regardless what I want to believe it is and experience the bliss of being alone without assuming there needs to be an originator in order to experience it.

The creator is not an assumption. Why do you view it that way?
Why is Romans 1:19, 20, and Psalms 19:1 wrong?

So you believe god put something in process and no longer has a hand in creating?

Yes. God finished his creative works after he created the woman, who would - with the man, of course - produce the offspring that would result in population of the earth.

That does divert trying to prove god as the creator when it's assumed god no longer creates after a certain time period. I bet we will "see" the same thing here with stars forming etc as the beginning of the physical universe that there is nothing we can "see" forming these things but still carry the assumption that god did it.

Huh?

You really got to explain what god is because saying he is the creator and put things in motion sounds more like concepts and theories.

It's in the Bible... which you said you read. Didn't you see it?

If I understood it intellectually, that wouldn't mean anything deeper to me though. I don't see my life changing just because I understood what other people mean by the creator and creation. Instead, personally, I believe the physical universe formed and created itself. The spirituality of it is all human interpretations to explain the mystery of life but we're just a speck in the universe, so I wouldn't expect to claim as a fact anything that exists beyond my assumptions (theories, hypothesis, etc).

All that said, you haven't addressed the whole purpose of my post.
How do you test, as you claimed, that man built something for which you never saw him build it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What sense tells you that you are missing something from your life? Or do you think the only things that could be missing from your life are food, drink, and sleep?

You gave me this link already.

Please don't go there again. I did not put these here to say Goddidit.

I can repeat it? My points still the same.

Whether they are ahead of their time or not, is unimportant. Don't lose the focus.

You asked the question, so I answered it-I don't believe they are ahead of their time.

Huh

Sorry. Was to skywalker (110)

Evidence of what? I'm trying to figure out how you test that a structure is built by man rather than aliens, or some kind of creature.

I am not "personally" sure. Though, I'm sure archeologist have their own criteria and tests to determine whether people built the pyramids and not aliens.

I don't see anything written to say they made any conclusions.... other than to assume mandidit.

Why?

Pretty much. But my issue isn't the origin of a building since all buildings we know so far whether past or present we assume (if not evidence) man did it and today we know man did it and we can replicate most things man did or left locked in historical mystery.

God is not a man-that's the issue. You can only assume, have faith, or believe that god is the origin of creation. It is not a fact because there are no factors of this originator that's not dependent on a said belief system.

You have not explained why. I'm listening. Not that I am saying God did it, but I want to hear from you, why does it have to be man.

All buildings we know so far are made from man...

I am totally at a lost where you going. It's not aliens and not god and not ponies. Why would I assume anything else (why would scientist and archeologist for that matter) assume buildings on earth were not built by man? (Appeal to ignorance?)

Just take your focus off Goddidit, and it can't be, and that might help you get it.

What?

Okay. Let's use this.
Do you see the wind? Yet you don't think it must be a hand moving the leaves.
When you sit and watch Opera Winfrey, in your house, you don't think she is actually sitting in your living room.

Because you don't see God, does not make him any less likely.
Man made instruments allow you to detect things you cannot directly see.
To conclude that nothing exist outside of the earth, or the universe, that you cannot see, would not be reasonable. Would it?

Saying it with more emphasis doesn't change my point. Maybe what you believe is based on faith?

Since we have more than one sense, we still know the wind exist without needing to see it. Kinda hard to make the same argument with someone who is hundred percent blind.

Not sure about the Oprah comparison, though. But unless film directors and audience were fake, I'm pretty sure what I see is actually her on stage (or where ever she is). Not sure where you getting at?

I can't remember which fallacy that is but you're assuming because you can't see the wind but the wind exist means automatically even though you can't see god, god can still exist.

One can be tested by hearing, feeling, physics, or watching things move because of the wind. I have yet to see the "wind of god", listen to god's actual voice (deep tone? monotone?), and feel him actually pull my arm in a dance. Your comparisons between god and geology and physics just doesn't add up.

Not sure where you going with the last sentence. I don't remember concluding something cannot exist just because we can't experience it through our five senses.

Why do you keep quoting the bible, though?

Is this a spiritual conversation (the nature of god), scientific (proof of the wind, geology, and physics), historical (builders and buildings and pyramids and mystery of rocks on earth)?

History doesn't prove god exist (as originator of the earth) nor does science. Hence why people need faith.

So, we also have the instruments which scientists themselves use, to figure out what is. Our perception - our brain. This allows us to see the invisible... the cause of the effect.

You keep focusing on vision as if it's the only thing that can prove something is physically present. Does god being the creator of the universe have any alternative instruments to discern whether or not it is true-that's not the bible?

Molecules are the blocks not the "builder" itself (if there is one?).

Not sure if I understand the question correctly, but I will try.
Maybe the answer to your question is somewhere in the answer to this question ... If you came from an ape ancestor, how is it that we don't see that process taking place?
However, if I had the ability to make a seed, with everything in it, needed to grow a tree, with seed of the same kind, I am sure that all the seeds from the tree that grows, will have the potential to grow into trees.
So I would basically only need to design two seeds - one producing male tree, and one female.

Somewhat. If you had a row of dominoes, I wouldn't say god was just the person who pushes the first block. Actually, that's probably why these god-exist discussions happen, believers lean on the "if it's a mystery, therefore it's true" and no one can get out of it.

But in my opinion, god would be in the hand of every single living created and growing thing regardless the time period. Not the originator of the universe but one who sustains it and keeps it moving.

But I'm actually surprised you have a rebuttal for my point because, unless god is something you can see, hear, touch, whatever, I'm sure if he created today we still wouldn't see it anymore than when he moved the first block, no?

Why would God need to create anything after finishing the creation of what was needed? We have many varieties of animals, people, trees, foods, etc... all from small beginnings.
Don't let your mouth water.

That's odd thing to say. Wouldn't growth from sperm/egg be creation of a baby as with seeds and water be the creation of a flower (case in point), and so forth?

When a watchmaker finishes his job, there is no need for him to add anything to that watch. It will work as long as it's suppose to, or until it is broken.

But watches aren't made perfect. They wear down. They stop working. The earth won't be here forever. Our galaxy more than likely not as well. Stars poof and so do planets. Everything is in chaos.

The creator is not an assumption. Why do you view it that way?
Why is Romans 1:19, 20, and Psalms 19:1 wrong?

I can use faith? Hope things exist that can't be seen.

It's in the Bible... which you said you read. Didn't you see it?

The bible does not speak for itself. Not even close. I don't have personal ties to it so it reads like other books philosophy, story, and otherwise.

Edit. What is god in your point of view?

Saying he did and his attitude, emotions are one thing, but what is god?

All that said, you haven't addressed the whole purpose of my post.
How do you test, as you claimed, that man built something for which you never saw him build it?

Other than blueprints and building the same thing yourself (which I said somewhere back when), not sure what else. We usually don't ask that question when it comes to man-made stuff but with god, cough, totally different.

Edit.

If you are looking for specifics, I'm not an archeologist to give them to you. I highly assume that whatever archeologist find about a building's origin, most likely, the originator would not be an alien not less god.

 

[nPeace]

You gave me this link already.

You didn't answer the question.

I can repeat it? My points still the same.

Apparently I don't understand what your point is.

You asked the question, so I answered it-I don't believe they are ahead of their time.

I did not ask the question. You answered a question which I didn't ask, and did not answer a question I asked.

Sorry. Was to skywalker (110)

I am not "personally" sure. Though, I'm sure archeologist have their own criteria and tests to determine whether people built the pyramids and not aliens.

Not sure why you brought up pyramids here.

Pretty much. But my issue isn't the origin of a building since all buildings we know so far whether past or present we assume (if not evidence) man did it and today we know man did it and we can replicate most things man did or left locked in historical mystery.

God is not a man-that's the issue. You can only assume, have faith, or believe that god is the origin of creation. It is not a fact because there are no factors of this originator that's not dependent on a said belief system.

Okay but you assume that all buildings even if it's not a building, but rocks set up, was built by man, but assume that everything else requires no builder. I don't follow that logic.
This makes more sense,
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. (Hebrews 3:4)
...since what we see, show evidence of purposeful design and structure - like building blocks set up specifically in an ordered way.
If I went to the beach, and I saw this

I would have no good reason for assuming that anyone built it, unless the water qualifies as someone.
However, if I saw this...

I could logically conclude that some intelligent being built it. As to whom, I don't know. I could only assume.

All buildings we know so far are made from man...

So you assume. You cannot declare an assumption to be true, as you don't want anyone to be doing that.

I am totally at a lost where you going. It's not aliens and not god and not ponies. Why would I assume anything else (why would scientist and archeologist for that matter) assume buildings on earth were not built by man? (Appeal to ignorance?)

Assuming it's man, is just as bad, I think.

What?


Saying it with more emphasis doesn't change my point. Maybe what you believe is based on faith?
Sound like you have that, does it not. Aren't you assuming what you don't know for sure, and accepting it on faith - faith that man must be the builder.

Since we have more than one sense, we still know the wind exist without needing to see it. Kinda hard to make the same argument with someone who is hundred percent blind.

Not sure about the Oprah comparison, though. But unless film directors and audience were fake, I'm pretty sure what I see is actually her on stage (or where ever she is). Not sure where you getting at?

I can't remember which fallacy that is but you're assuming because you can't see the wind but the wind exist means automatically even though you can't see god, god can still exist.

Why create a fallacy when no one is saying what you said. That's a definite strawman.

One can be tested by hearing, feeling, physics, or watching things move because of the wind. I have yet to see the "wind of god", listen to god's actual voice (deep tone? monotone?), and feel him actually pull my arm in a dance. Your comparisons between god and geology and physics just doesn't add up.

I made no comparison between God and geology. You created another strawman.

Not sure where you going with the last sentence. I don't remember concluding something cannot exist just because we can't experience it through our five senses.

Why do you keep quoting the bible, though?

Reference.

Is this a spiritual conversation (the nature of god), scientific (proof of the wind, geology, and physics), historical (builders and buildings and pyramids and mystery of rocks on earth)?

History doesn't prove god exist (as originator of the earth) nor does science. Hence why people need faith.


You keep focusing on vision as if it's the only thing that can prove something is physically present. Does god being the creator of the universe have any alternative instruments to discern whether or not it is true-that's not the bible?

Molecules are the blocks not the "builder" itself (if there is one?).

Oh dear.

How can you build a flower as you would a building?

Answer - Molecules.
The answer is the builder?

Somewhat. If you had a row of dominoes, I wouldn't say god was just the person who pushes the first block. Actually, that's probably why these god-exist discussions happen, believers lean on the "if it's a mystery, therefore it's true" and no one can get out of it.

But in my opinion, god would be in the hand of every single living created and growing thing regardless the time period. Not the originator of the universe but one who sustains it and keeps it moving.

But I'm actually surprised you have a rebuttal for my point because, unless god is something you can see, hear, touch, whatever, I'm sure if he created today we still wouldn't see it anymore than when he moved the first block, no?


That's odd thing to say. Wouldn't growth from sperm/egg be creation of a baby as with seeds and water be the creation of a flower (case in point), and so forth?


But watches aren't made perfect. They wear down. They stop working. The earth won't be here forever. Our galaxy more than likely not as well. Stars poof and so do planets. Everything is in chaos.


I can use faith? Hope things exist that can't be seen.


The bible does not speak for itself. Not even close. I don't have personal ties to it so it reads like other books philosophy, story, and otherwise.

Edit. What is god in your point of view?

Saying he did and his attitude, emotions are one thing, but what is god?


Other than blueprints and building the same thing yourself (which I said somewhere back when), not sure what else. We usually don't ask that question when it comes to man-made stuff but with god, cough, totally different.

Edit.

If you are looking for specifics, I'm not an archeologist to give them to you. I highly assume that whatever archeologist find about a building's origin, most likely, the originator would not be an alien not less god.

Faith is not hope.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay but you assume that all buildings even if it's not a building, but rocks set up, was built by man, but assume that everything else requires no builder. I don't follow that logic.

The structure was built by man. The rocks (the earth) were not.

Comparing a building and other historical and archeological monuments that man built (whether in theory or fact) does not support your argument that there is a designer for creation-the earth, water, and flowers. It may be a theory, assumption, taken on faith and belief, but definitely not fact.

Molecules are the "blocks" that make up the flower. It doesn't tell what the (or who the, or if there is a) originator of that flower. We just see it grow and whither. Same as animals, same as human beings (case in point). We see the process in which these things form into, live, age, and die out of existence.

I can see how you get the "idea" that something as beautiful and designed as a flower "should" or must have a creator. Whether it actually does or not tends to be based on people's belief, opinions, and faith. Other modes of science doesn't quite work on those criteria.