Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

[Loudmouth]

Newton was not a scientist.

Is gravity just an invention?

So intelligent beings who act can design dogs. Therefore, all life as we know it came about through natural selection without any intelligent design.

Natural processes can also act, and produce the biodiversity we see today. No need to invoke intelligent agents where none are needed. Or do you think each raindrop is guided by an intelligent being?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's just not relevant.

You are still in denial.

The person in question said that science does not believe in INVISIBLE things.

And it doesn't. Science accepts the fact that things are detectable.

 

[Zosimus]

Is gravity just an invention?

Yes, gravity is just an invention. It is an illusion created by curved space.

Natural processes can also act, and produce the biodiversity we see today.

Yes, I'm aware that this is your theory. What's your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, gravity is just an invention. It is an illusion created by curved space.

You mean the curved space as defined by the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF RELATIVITY?

Yes, I'm aware that this is your theory. What's your point?

The point that I already made and you are avoiding.

"No need to invoke intelligent agents where none are needed. Or do you think each raindrop is guided by an intelligent being?"

 

[Zosimus]

You mean the curved space as defined by the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF RELATIVITY?

Are you surprised that I know your latest theories?

The point that I already made and you are avoiding.

Irrelevant.

"No need to invoke intelligent agents where none are needed. Or do you think each raindrop is guided by an intelligent being?"

This is a common misconception. Atheists throw it around as though it were true. Why should I believe such a thing?

If someone were accused of killing his wife, would you accept the argument that it is inappropriate to presuppose intelligent agents where none are needed? After all, the entire death of his wife can be explained by natural processes such as blood loss and organ failure.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you surprised that I know your latest theories?

I am not surprised that you are deflecting.

Irrelevant.

The way we know that something is relevant is that you call it irrelevant.

This is a common misconception. Atheists throw it around as though it were true. Why should I believe such a thing?

If someone were accused of killing his wife, would you accept the argument that it is inappropriate to presuppose intelligent agents where none are needed? After all, the entire death of his wife can be explained by natural processes such as blood loss and organ failure.

Answer the question. Do you think that every rain drop is being guided by an intelligent being simply because a human can make a drop of water fall to the ground?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Newton was not a scientist.

That's really just splitting hairs. Define 'scientist'.
He was a mathematician namely, but made plenty of observations and even laws.

He was also a very avid Christian, don't hear too much about that though. Oddly enough.
Before taking his post, he even deduced that the world was going to end in 2060 in his studies and deciphering of the Bible.

Scientists today like to uphold his genius, having invented Calculus in just a matter of a month or two to figure out a problem with the light spectrum. At the same time, however, they criticize him for believing in 'the God of the Gaps', because what he couldn't figure out, he simply gave up to the power of God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If it is so simple, maybe you can help us understand, with some evidence?

All of creation is evidence. All the evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism. I can not give you any more then what you already have.

 

[bhsmte]

All of creation is evidence. All the evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism. I can not give you any more then what you already have.

Just like hitting the easy button.

 

[Zosimus]

Answer the question. Do you think that every rain drop is being guided by an intelligent being simply because a human can make a drop of water fall to the ground?

No, I do not believe that every raindrop (it's all one word, btw) is guided by an intelligent being.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Just like hitting the easy button.

No doubt evolutionists make it very easy for creationists.
There is no question they are doing all the work of gathering all the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

No doubt evolutionists make it very easy for creationists.
There is no question they are doing all the work of gathering all the evidence.

Cool.

 

[Larniavc]

Relevance? None.

Not so.

Your implication was that they had not been observed. I showed this to be wrong. If you now claim this is not relevant your initial point would then become a non sequitur.

I'm sure the people in the cheap seats can see the flaw in your reply: I can; and I barely got past graduate school.

 

[Larniavc]

All of creation is evidence. All the evidence for evolution is evidence for creationism. I can not give you any more then what you already have.

What we see in the world around us is evidence of the inevitable expression of sentience in a universe predicated on non-intentional origins.

Do you see how easy it is to assert things?

 

[dad]

You are still in denial.



And it doesn't. Science accepts the fact that things are detectable.

Yet it cannot detect spirits, or dark stuff, of which they claim most of the universe is made of! They can't detect their way out of a paper bag.

 

[loveofourlord]

Which still can not hope to explain how a mutation in an individual would ever become fixed in the population - unless that individuals descendants are the entire population? So a mutation that occurred today in say, Bob - will never affect anyone except his descendants, which will never be the population, but only a fraction thereof. Unless you are going to kill off everyone else to ensure this happens?

Really? So a mutation that allows one animal to feed more efficiently then others of it's species, he's more likly to be healthy, more likly to be fit for a mate, more likly to avoid predators, or win fights with others of it's own species so outcompetes, those with the less efficient way to feed. So over time those that are less efficient are the more likly to not make it.

As the old joke goes, "I don't have to outrun the lion, I just have to outrun you." so a mutation that allows a zebra to run faster, while it's possible he will be eaten anyway, but if he survives and passes it to his offspring they will be faster too, and while it may be only marginally faster, it only has to be faster then the slowest zebra, but over time as those with his genes are less likly to be picked off over time that gene dominates. it's that way with any mutation that gives an advantage.

Also many genes will remain in a population untill there is pressure for it to dominate, take antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the bacteria don't gain the resistance in response to antibiotics, some have the resistance already through mutations, but are selected for once there is pressure, AKA antibiotics.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Really? So a mutation that allows one animal to feed more efficiently then others of it's species, he's more likly to be healthy, more likly to be fit for a mate, more likly to avoid predators, or win fights with others of it's own species so outcompetes, those with the less efficient way to feed. So over time those that are less efficient are the more likly to not make it.

I came to this forum with one question and as yet no one has even attempted to answer that question. Just how does food evolve to become more nutritious? Science is talking about how important it is to eat nutritious food. So how can we apply evolutionary theory in a way that can help us to determine what diet is the best and most nutritious for us. Yet evolutionists do not seem to have anything to contribute when it come to practical application of their theory. When the rubber meets the road evolutionary theory ends up with a flat tire.

As the old joke goes, "I don't have to outrun the lion, I just have to outrun you."

That holds true on the job. We do not have to do the best work around, just better then what everyone else is doing. That usually turns out to be very easy because people seldom give it their best.

 

[loveofourlord]

I came to this forum with one question and as yet no one has even attempted to answer that question. Just how does food evolve to become more nutritious? Science is talking about how important it is to eat nutritious food. So how can we apply evolutionary theory in a way that can help us to determine what diet is the best and most nutritious for us. Yet evolutionists do not seem to have anything to contribute when it come to practical application of their theory. When the rubber meets the road evolutionary theory ends up with a flat tire.

*face palms* food doesn't evolve to become more nutritous, we evolve to make adapt to food thats nutritious.

Nylon didn't evolve to be nutirious to nylon eating bacteria, the bacteria evolved to eat nylon, same with the ecoli experiment where they evolved to eat a different food that allowed them to get more energy and be more efficient.

In my example, say darwins finches, the seeds didn't evolve for the beak of the bird, the bird evolved a beak that allowed it to eat a new food source that the rest of it's species had hard time with, over time they diversify this is how evolution works.

And evolutionary theory wouldn't tell us what is the most nutritious food, it just explains WHY cretain foods are nutritious and why some arn't and why we even crave food thats bad for us *AKA food thats bad for us was never in enough supply till recently to be dangerous, nor did we live long enough to get most of the bad effects, but at the time it WAS good for us, sugar is good as it's a good source of energy, we just get more then we need and no longer die off before diabetes would in general happen*

before you make silly comments like evolution can't explain X, maybe you should first A) Find out if they can, and B) if thats even a sensible thing for evolution to explain.

Evolution can't explain qauntum physics, but thats not a fault of evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

*face palms* food doesn't evolve to become more nutritous, we evolve to make adapt to food thats nutritious.

Plants do not evolve only the animals that eat those plants?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you think that every rain drop is being guided by an intelligent being simply because a human can make a drop of water fall to the ground?

Genesis chaper one says:

"God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:"

If God can create a firmament then yes, every drop of water is controlled by the natural laws that He created.