A Creator is Evident

[Farmmaa]

If you read my post more carefully you will note I have never suggested science was not ever evolving (quite the contrary, in fact), nor have I ever defended religion – as Donald’s rebuttal implies. What I did say, and what you could rebut, if so inclined, is that “ordinary” quantum mechanics has already been replaced by "quantum field theory", and I suggested we only study ordinary QM because QFT is even harder than QM, and QM itself seems pretty hard for most people to understand. Cheers.

My reading comprehension abilities are fine thanks.

I didn't read DonaldG's comment as a rebuttal to your opinions in the least - more of a comparison of how your comments could more aptly be applied to religion - because, after all, this is a religion forum.

[Ka-El]

My reading comprehension abilities are fine thanks.

ok

[maryjane48]

the universe evolved and we can understand how it evolved now .it wasnt no god

[maryjane48]

and ka is wrong about qm and qft one is physics the other is math

[Farmmaa]

I must admit, I never truly understood the insanity of true creationists until now. I mean, I knew it was off the wall nutty...but....holy crap...seriously ????
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info ... lution.htm

In the creation vs. evolution debate facts for kids, natural selection and survival of the fittest are real and has caused many to believe that life is an accident. If you believe that life is an accident, this has caused considerable conflict and turmoil in your life that was not of your conscious actions. If evolution is your belief, it is an integral part of your thoughts and your demeanour. Unfortunately, you are not living in harmony with love, peace, joy and a life of comfort or your own existence. Turmoil and conflict just flow into your life and you may wonder, 'why me'? The problem is that much of the theory of evolution is unbelievable. Evolution vs. creationism is the cause of the unsolicited turmoil in your life. So you have my sympathy, my prayers and my warm regards. After two hundred years of Darwinism, in creation vs. evolution many unbelievable beliefs about evolution have evolved. Because these unproven theories are published as absolute facts rather than unproven theories and are promoted by our government and by the biased mass news media, the unsuspecting public accepts them as truths.

Belief in evolution results in a subconscious feeling of futility and despair because it is in total conflict with humans' and other creatures' desire to live and their constant battle to survive. Belief in evolution causes one to wonder if he or she will cease to exist or will suffer torture eternally in hell. Belief in creation results in a conscious feeling of comfort, joy and peace, causing one to know that he or she will live forever, free of pain, discord and suffering.

Some of the best arguments for creationism - besides the fact that there is ZERO scientific evidence or proof of evolution....

Whales did not evolve from dogs.
That aliens created billions of species on earth is not credible. What then, created the aliens? ( Belief in evolution means aliens did it ?? HUH ?)
Earth and moon dust prove the earth is young
Noah's Ark actually occurred.
The coming to earth of Jesus actually occurred
Biblical Predictions of the coming of Jesus Christ prove that it was pre-planned. ( The bible is proof that the bible is true )
Skin colour is not an accident. ( Uh...duh )
The Ten Commandments are valid guidelines for conduct.

Just way too much stupid for one page

The rest of their extensive list basically just keeps repeating that nothing was an accident...thus...they have no idea what evolution actually means or how it works.

Please make it stop !!
This video proves...you know...god - because, hands.
http://www.icr.org/evidence

My eyes are bleeding, I have to lie down now.

.

[OREZ]

The eye is really not so much an intelligent design

In response to the “eye is poorly designed” argument which originally comes from Dawkin’s 1986 book, “The Blind Watchmaker”:

To know that an eagle can perch on the top of a tree and spot a fish under water a half a mile away or that an owl basically has night vision and then say, “yeah but it’s wired the wrong way so it’s a poor design,” seems very odd.

I figured that just because Dawkins doesn’t understand why the vertebrate eye is designed the way it is does not make it a bad design so I did some more reading about the eye.

Full spectrum light is composed of more wavelengths than we can see and some of them are actually harmful to our eyes. Our skin has pigment to protect us but even so, we know that prolonged exposure to the sun can cause damage. It turns out that the retina has complex mechanisms for dealing with the harmful effects of light. It also turns out that the photo receptors need a large blood supply exchange rate to keep them supplied with oxygen and nutrients and to cool them from the heat build-up from constant exposure to focused light. (think about the magnifying glass and sun effect)

Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors so that the receptors would point toward the light but that would put them too far away from the blood supply and result in an eye which would not last very long because of the harmful effects of full spectrum light and heat build-up. The eye is designed with less than optimal ability to gather light so that it can be functional for several decades.

This is actually a very condensed explanation for the sake of being brief, there’s obviously much more to it but I wondered what would cause a presumably intelligent guy like Dawkins to come to his conclusion? My first answer would be arrogance but I think it’s because when you begin with your conclusion and then go looking for evidence to back it up, you’re likely to miss important information. However, that approach seems to be just fine with a lot of people and they’re quite satisfied to call it done and “put a lid on it” but it’s not a very scientific approach to understanding anything.

And by the way, Farmmaa, just because you or others can find wingnuts who post idiotic arguments in favor of creation and re-post them here to ridicule them doesn't win any points for your side or discredit the theory of I.D. but it does suggest that you don't want to have a real conversation about it.

[Farmmaa]

There are many sources, far beyond the reach of Dawkins, which show that the human eye ( not a bird's eye, as we are, in fact, humans, not birds), although complex, is hardly well designed. In fact, the article I posted was written by a Dr...a neurologist.

Just because you or others can find atheists and evolutionists who post arguments in favor of evolution and re-post them here to ridicule them doesn't win any points for your side or give credit to the theory of I.D. but it does suggest that you don't want to have a real conversation about it.

.http://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/0 ... human-eye/

Why do you suppose that ID would include a design which leaves millions unable to see with much clarity at all?

The design of the eye is but one small argument to the dismissal of intelligent design...one of many issues which have been scientifically proven...and hardly the one piece of evidence to determine how we came to be.

[OREZ]

Just because you or others can find atheists and evolutionists who post arguments in favor of evolution and re-post them here to ridicule them doesn't win any points for your side or give credit to the theory of I.D. but it does suggest that you don't want to have a real conversation about it.

I haven't done that.

Why do you copy a paragraph of mine and then edit it in order to change the meaning and try to make a point for yourself? Pretty lame.

[Farmmaa]

I haven't done that.

Why do you copy a paragraph of mine and then edit it in order to change the meaning and try to make a point for yourself? Pretty lame.

In order to show you just how ridiculous your 'point' was.

Simple - you can add something by providing evidence to support or disprove the Op's claim, or you can just continue to insult those who don't agree with you.
Your choice

[OREZ]

I haven't done that.

Why do you copy a paragraph of mine and then edit it in order to change the meaning and try to make a point for yourself? Pretty lame.

In order to show you just how ridiculous your 'point' was.

Funny, one of the right-wing zealots in the political forum tried the same thing with me when he didn't have a strong point to make and was reprimanded by Jo.

Simple - you can add something by providing evidence to support or disprove the Op's claim, or you can just continue to insult those who don't agree with you.
Your choice

I have added to the discussion and haven't insulted anyone. I see you may have chosen the latter.

Also, it's not for me to support the OP's claim since I don't know exactly what the OP believes and may not even agree with him/her.

[OREZ]

Aaaanyways...

I don't know who was trying to say that evolutionists believe that whales evolved from dogs, I've certainly never heard that. My understanding is that whales are believed to have evolved from the Diacodexis.

[OREZ]

^^^

I'm not even saying that I completely dismiss this possibility but Darwin believed that, for natural selection acting on random mutation to work, the mutations would have to be incrementally very small. Most evolutionary biologists have always agreed that major mutations pretty much always produce deformity, loss of function, sterility and/or death therefore major mutations are in fact, weeded out by natural selection. In order for them to be genetically inherited they have to be very small and subtle.

That would take A LOT of time and it would produce many, many intermediary body plans in order to go from the Diacodexis to the whale. (Think of the many changes in the design, one scientist estimated it to be well into the tens of thousands.) It would seem to me that, logically, one would require more than two intermediary species to conclusively prove this theory but to my knowledge there have been only two fossil remains which have been proposed as intermediaries.

[Farmmaa]

I find it really odd that people base their opinions on evolution based on the initial theory and research carried out in the 1800's.
Darwin simply introduced the theory, he certainly didn't solve all of the questions, missing links and unanswered questions.

Yes indeed, evolution would have taken a very long time - and - it did. Millions and millions of years, and it's not done, it is a continuous process.

As you can clearly see, yes, it would take many intermediary designs along the way...that's how evolution works. The Pakicetus did not simply turn in to a whale. It was the earliest known member of the modern whale lineage.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/evolut ... -animation
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/whales- ... -evolution

[OREZ]

I find it really odd that people base their opinions on evolution based on the initial theory and research carried out in the 1800's.
Darwin simply introduced the theory, he certainly didn't solve all of the questions, missing links and unanswered questions.

Yes indeed, evolution would have taken a very long time - and - it did. Millions and millions of years, and it's not done, it is a continuous process.

Which "people"? I don't base my opinions on 19th century science because I don't really have much of an opinion on it. I'd rather not carve some opinion of mine into stone and then try to staunchly defend it. The study of this is on-going and for some people to assert that there is complete agreement among scientists on it now and that it's all settled is incorrect so why should us laymen dig in our heals? It's not conducive to learning.

I was merely pointing out that mutations need to be small and incremental which is what Darwin thought and most evolutionary biologists still think. Some have tried to suggest that large jumps in evolution are possible but the problem with that is large mutations need to happen early in embryonic development and are not viable because they almost always produce deformations, loss of function and sterility or death. Small mutations can happen later in development and can be viable but tend to not affect animal design globally. It seems like kind of a paradox to me which some scientists have pointed out.

Your links show one or two intermediaries before the animal becomes completely aquatic and then it's supposed to have evolved rapidly. It's an interesting theory but it's not proven by the fossil record by any stretch... unless that's the only conclusion one is willing to entertain from the beginning.

[Donald G]

I was merely pointing out that mutations need to be small and incremental which is what Darwin thought and most evolutionary biologists still think. Some have tried to suggest that large jumps in evolution are possible but the problem with that is large mutations need to happen early in embryonic development and are not viable because they almost always produce deformations, loss of function and sterility or death. Small mutations can happen later in development and can be viable but tend to not affect animal design globally. It seems like kind of a paradox to me which some scientists have pointed out.

WADR ALL mutations that are carried to the next generation MUST take place at the DNA level. In each generation there about 2000 mistakes made in replicating DNA but only about one in 20,000 such replications ever show up in subsequent generations if they are advantageous to that particular specie.

The other 19,999 "mistakes" are simply added to the large amount of "junk DNA" that gets carried from generation to generation.

A cell change that is NOT replicated in the DNA will NOT be carried to the next generation.