Creation Suggests Creation

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why does anyone think telling an unsourced story about an unnamed preacher and an unnamed child at an unspecified time and unknown location has anything to do with anything?

It's a parable to show that the religious view can always triumph by making a sufficiently absurd straw-man.

 

[rockytopva]

The complexity of the eye...

1. The eye is composed of over 2 million moving parts and can process large bits of information as it reports color and black and white images to the brain.
2. The cornea is the only living cell in the human eye that does not have a direct connection to a blood vessel (which would interfere with our ability to see). The lens and water filled cavity must remain clear.
3. In terms of relative size the muscles in our eyeballs are the strongest muscles in our body. The muscles in your eyes are constantly moving and readjusting, they are even moving while we sleep, as our eyes are constantly moving during the REM cycle of our sleep.
4. Due to our brain doing a clever bit of piecing things together, we are unable to see that blind spot each of us have in the center of our vision. This blind spot is caused by a missing light receptor in your retina. The reason there is a missing light receptor is because the optic nerve that reaches the back of the eye, all the way to the surface of the retina, takes up space where a light receptor could be.
5. Your eye is the one part of your body that doesn’t need rest to function at 100%.
6. The eyes have the ability to function together, moving and adjusting as one unit.
7. Two eyes - One image in the mind!

Just came out of the dust that way? I don't think so!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The complexity of the eye...

Is not the death nail in the coffin for evolution that creationists think it is. The evolutionary history of the eye is well established, and at this point, it's just flat out ignorant to say that it was a miraculous one time thing.

 

[rockytopva]

Is not the death nail in the coffin for evolution that creationists think it is. The evolutionary history of the eye is well established, and at this point, it's just flat out ignorant to say that it was a miraculous one time thing.

If you are going to place your eternal souls security on such thinking.... Good luck to you!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you are going to place your eternal souls security on such thinking.... Good luck to you!

My acceptance of the theory of evolution as scientific fact has nothing to do with my belief in the afterlife or God. Believe it or not, they can exist together comfortably.

 

[rockytopva]

My acceptance of the theory of evolution as scientific fact has nothing to do with my belief in the afterlife or God. Believe it or not, they can exist together comfortably.

I believe the relationship with the Father and the creation is intimate...

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. - Matthew 10:29

And I also believe Jesus was created inside Mary as a working of the Heavenly Father...

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. - Matthew 1

And Jesus's relationship with the Father was also intimate...

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? - Luke 2

I also desire such an intimate relationship with my Heavenly Father.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you are going to place your eternal souls security on such thinking.... Good luck to you!

I see no evidence for eternal souls.
I see abundant evidence for evolution.
But thank you for the good luck wish, assuming it was general.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I believe the relationship with the Father and the creation is intimate...

And I do not believe that since God seems to have purposefully made His creation to look for all intents and purposes like it has evolved.
So... either God is lying, or you just might be wrong.

 

[pitabread]

Yes I agree,
I have been reading Stephen Meyer's book 'Signature in the cell' and listening to his YouTube videos.

Wow, science has moved on from the out of date Darwin theories of evolution.

Meyer's a hack. If you're getting your information about biology from him, you're going to be missing out on almost everything.

 

[pitabread]

If you are going to place your eternal souls security on such thinking.... Good luck to you!

If a supernatural deity requires us to reject science, then said supernatural entity isn't worth believing in in the first place.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is not the death nail in the coffin for evolution that creationists think it is. The evolutionary history of the eye is well established, and at this point, it's just flat out ignorant to say that it was a miraculous one time thing.

The belief in the evolution of the eye is well established.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If a supernatural deity requires us to reject science, then said supernatural entity isn't worth believing in in the first place.

Science is the study of the creation.

 

[pitabread]

Science is the study of the creation.

Not according to many creationists around here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The belief in the evolution of the eye is well established.

No, the science is well established.

You don't even try and pretend to not be a troll, do you?

 

[Speedwell]

I believe the relationship with the Father and the creation is intimate...

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. - Matthew 10:29

And I also believe Jesus was created inside Mary as a working of the Heavenly Father...

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. - Matthew 1

And Jesus's relationship with the Father was also intimate...

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? - Luke 2

I also desire such an intimate relationship with my Heavenly Father.

The existence of God, His authorship of our being and the redemption of the world through His Son Jesus Christ has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether evolution is a valid scientific theory or not. You're not arguing honestly, and if you cannot argue honestly, why should we pay any attention to you at all?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, the science is well established.

You don't even try and pretend to not be a troll, do you?

Even the simplest 'eye', from which eyes 'evolved' is hopelessly complex. About those 'fossilized eyes', I thought eyes were soft tissue.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even the simplest 'eye', from which eyes 'evolved' is hopelessly complex. About those 'fossilized eyes', I thought eyes were soft tissue.

It is not really complex. It's a patch of cells that reacted to light. It wouldn't have given the animal stereoscopic colour 20/20 vision, it would have just been able to see where light was and where light wasn't. Not hard.

 

[pitabread]

Even the simplest 'eye', from which eyes 'evolved' is hopelessly complex.

Not really. When you get down to the very basics, you're just dealing with light sensitive proteins. And scientists have already begun mapping out at the molecular level how those would have evolved.

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Plasma (E/c2)

1. Mass can change to plasma
2. Plasma can change to Mass

Which makes it eternal stuff! If you believe in evolution you can step back a little and picture mass changing to plasma to create what has been called the Big Bang. I believe such events happened with these words, “Let there be light!” in which, according to Genesis a mass without form became plasma energy. I believe the mass will soon return to plasma in which God will do something else with it...

The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. - 2 Peter 3:10

God is going to take all that plasma energy... And do something else with it! As our human life is very short in contrast I go along with Blaise Pascal...

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell). - Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is not really complex. It's a patch of cells that reacted to light. It wouldn't have given the animal stereoscopic colour 20/20 vision, it would have just been able to see where light was and where light wasn't. Not hard.

Where's the evidence of that?