Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[driewerf]

Why would it be necessary?

Because it is one of the big unifying theories in biology that explains an awful lot of the patterns we see in the living world. It explains the pattern of both similarities and differences we see in the genetics of different species.It explains the geographical distribution of plants and animals. It explains how populations react to external pressures.
It makes biology more than just fact collecting, it gives biology (and the related life sciences) an explanatory power.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

That's not evidence, that's just supposition.

There's no indication that nature can't produce beauty or order. Or that these aren't just concepts created in human minds that we then impose on reality via our perceptive framework.

It's not even related to the question being asked. Evidence for that would be something like this: "Single celled simple organisms (nee "pond scum") are incapable of developing into multicellular complex life due to [insert reasons here]".

This speaks to the problem. The two sides of this debate are, to borrow from Churchill, "two nations separated by a common language". I'm asking for evidence against 'A', you're telling me about how 'B' and 'C' can only be produced by 'X'. It's a non-sequitur. A deliberate one, I suspect.

When I ask for evidence, I'm seeking something that is demonstrable. Quantifiable. Able to be replicated.

If I'd never heard of a the Christian God before, why should I believe such a thing was responsible for 'beauty' or 'order' on earth? Or, to put it another way: How did you rule God in, and how did you rule nature out?

The Earth is pretty. Checkmate, atheists!

 

[renniks]

If I'd never heard of a the Christian God before, why should I believe such a thing was responsible for 'beauty' or 'order' on earth? Or, to put it another way: How did you rule God in, and how did you rule nature out

Funny, every generation in history has worshiped someone or something, but you think you are smarter than all of them and don't see the evidence of creation that's all around you? "Nature" is not an entity. You don't rule it out, you just recognize the obvious, nature could not create itself. It's too complex and too beautiful.
No, you can't get from the pond scum to the variety of life we have without some magic formula either. There's not enough information in a single cell organism to create you. And we are back to: Just because DNA has some switches already programmed into it that can help organisms adapt to the environment doesn't get us to molecules to man evolution. It's a silly leap to make.

 

[renniks]

Because it is one of the big unifying theories in biology that explains an awful lot of the patterns we see in the living world. It explains the pattern of both similarities and differences we see in the genetics of different species.It explains the geographical distribution of plants and animals. It explains how populations react to external pressures.
It makes biology more than just fact collecting, it gives biology (and the related life sciences) an explanatory power.

Well, then the explanation is sorely lacking. It's like saying there's some magic fairy dust that causes tadpoles to morph into elephants if you throw enough time into the mix.

 

[renniks]

The Earth is pretty. Checkmate, atheists!

Explain beauty apart from a creator. It's un necessary for survival.

 

[trophy33]

Funny, every generation in history has worshiped someone or something, but you think you are smarter than all of them...
No, you can't get from the pond scum to the variety of life we have without some magic formula...

There's not enough information in a single cell organism to create you....

It's like saying there's some magic fairy dust that causes tadpoles to morph into elephants if you throw enough time into the mix.

Your arguments are really bad, even from a Christian standpoint.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution's Lampstand:

God's Lampstand:

 

[trophy33]

Evolution's Lampstand:

God's Lampstand:

This comparison does not even make sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

This comparison does not even make sense.

How 'bout this one: Discussion on the topic of evolution - Who believes what?

 

[Frank Robert]

Because it is one of the big unifying theories in biology that explains an awful lot of the patterns we see in the living world. It explains the pattern of both similarities and differences we see in the genetics of different species.It explains the geographical distribution of plants and animals. It explains how populations react to external pressures.
It makes biology more than just fact collecting, it gives biology (and the related life sciences) an explanatory power.

The supernatural is unnecessary to explain biological patterns as science does an adequate job in predicting them but you do need the supernatural to explain things contrary to common ancestry like creationist kinds.

 

[Frank Robert]

Explain beauty apart from a creator. It's un necessary for survival.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Explain beauty apart from a creator. It's un necessary for survival.

The argument from incredulity. Checkmate, atheists!

 

[Frank Robert]

How 'bout this one: Discussion on the topic of evolution - Who believes what?

The theory evolution relies on scientific evidence for for support. Deities rely on belief which is why there so many deities in human history.
Another way of looking at it is that while both have value, scientific evidence and belief are not analogous so everytime you equate them you are perpetrating an Argument from analogy which is a fallacy.

 

[MIDutch]

Funny, every generation in history has worshiped someone or something, but you think you are smarter than all of them and don't see the evidence of creation that's all around you?.

Odd then that you pick out just the one something, given that all the other somethings are just as "smart" as yours per your words above.

 

[renniks]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Lol, really? Who doesn't find the natural world beautiful? It doesn't need to be to function.

 

[renniks]

The argument from incredulity. Checkmate, atheists!

Well obviously you have nothing to add.

 

[renniks]

Odd then that you pick out just the one something, given that all the other somethings are just as "smart" as yours per your words above.

Nice avoidance.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well obviously you have nothing to add.

Look at us! We aren't so different after all!

 

[MIDutch]

Nice avoidance.

You are the one who posted "every generation in history has worshiped someone or something, but you think you are smarter than all of them and don't see the evidence of creation that's all around you?" and then proceed to avoid saying anything about why chose the thing you worship over all the others even though they are every bit as valid as yours is.

Are you willing to admit that humans can perceive "beauty" because of Krishna? Or the Buddha? Or Hahgwehdiyu?

 

[renniks]

You are the one who posted "every generation in history has worshiped someone or something, but you think you are smarter than all of them and don't see the evidence of creation that's all around you?" and then proceed to avoid saying anything about why chose the thing you worship over all the others even though they are every bit as valid as yours is.

Are you willing to admit that humans can perceive "beauty" because of Krishna? Or the Buddha? Or Hahgwehdiyu?

Buddha was just a man, so I'm not sure how that applies at all. Krishna would be a misinterpretation of who God is, but at least they understand he exists. and I have no idea who or what the other thing is.