• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evidence for Design (3)

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

why would God require repentance to save us, but not for us to"rescue those who sin against us."
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is an argument from ignorance, otherwise known as a God of the Gaps argument. Lack of evidence for evolution is not evidence for ID.



Again, arguing against evolution is not evidence for ID.

you are not following the conversation.

here, remember when it was said that avian wings are for warmth? That was in relation to it being a case of begging the question regarding the use of wings. I changed it on them saying it was begging the question regarding the use of avian wings because it doesn't prove that wings were used for warmth in evolutionary opinion and not for flight. Then I mentioned it again, and now it's MY problem? I did not commit God of teh gaps or argument from silence, the reason why there is ID in avian wings is precisely becaus they are "irreducibly complex" not that I am aguign against evolution at all. I haven't mentioned the evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
ere, remember when it was said that avian wings are for warmth?

Remember when people claimed that they have evidence for design, yet all they can do is talk about evolution?

I did not commit God of teh gaps or argument from silence,

The author of the paper you referenced did use that argument. That is the point being made.

the reason why there is ID in avian wings is precisely becaus they are "irreducibly complex" not that I am aguign against evolution at all. I haven't mentioned the evolution.

Why is irreducible complexity evidence of intelligent design?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
I would rather think it is a loss of function rather than the other way around.

Many of the things evolutionists propose are backwards.

Of course you would rather think that the facts are not what they are because the facts point to evolution and common ancestry.

The facts are that ERV's are the result of retroviral insertion. It is also an observed fact that retroviruses insert randomly amongst tons of different insertion sites. It is also an observed fact that infecting genetically identical cells with genetically identical viruses will not result in the same ERV at the same locatio with any reliable effeciency.

What do we see when we compare the human and chimps genome? Out of the 200,000 ERV's found in the human genome, less than 100 are NOT found in the chimp genome at the same location. Over 200,000 ERV's are found at the same exact location in both genomes while only a tiny fraction are not. That can not be explained by separate infections.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
why would God require repentance to save us, but not for us to"rescue those who sin against us."


Why would God require anything to save us if he's the all powerful designer of the universe?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives



I fail to see why you're even bringing up evolution when you're trying to prove design? It should be irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I fail to see why you're even bringing up evolution when you're trying to prove design? It should be irrelevant.

you don't remember?

another blogger brought up evolution of the wing.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why would God require anything to save us if he's the all powerful designer of the universe?

because then you get into free will, and such.

if you force people to be good or do good, because God IS good.....

then you are loving a robot.

not a human.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We are told that it is ridiculous to even consider the idea that feathers could be used for insulation instead of flying. Why is it ridiculous when there are living species who use feathers for insulation and not for flying?

you beg the question as to the designers motives.

the designer could have many purposes for feathers, more having to do with flight than anything else. I bet the feathers also insulate flying things too. What do you think of that?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I would rather think it is a loss of function rather than the other way around.

Many of the things evolutionists propose are backwards.

yeah, I haven't looked into it much.

but they are right if it's not for flight it's for insulation, but both seem to be useful most of the time and they missed that part.

but you may be correct, they could have lost it.

I would never say that birds evolved feathers for insulation, as there are better insulators to evolve, it takes a preknowledge of flight which would have been impossible.

so we win the debate...
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
you beg the question as to the designers motives.

I am challenging the claim that feathers could only be used for flight and nothing else. We have living examples that feathers can be used for things other than flying, so the claim is shown to be false.

the designer could have many purposes for feathers, more having to do with flight than anything else. I bet the feathers also insulate flying things too. What do you think of that?

What evidence do you have that a designer did anything?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

We also find feathers on dinosaurs that do not have wings, and are obviously not the descendants of modern birds.

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's as if you found hair on bats and pretend that hair could only appear on a flying creature.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Feathers are not wings. Feathers are not necessary for flight. They do provide insulation and they are found on some fossil dinosaurs. You didn't even look closely at the paper you linked to. It discusses the feathers on birds wings, not the structure of the wings themselves. It's bad enough you know nothing about the Theory of Evolution you attempt to debunk, but you don't even know about the "evidence" you submit to "support" ID.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Excuse me, but aren't you claiming that God designed everything in the universe? So each grain of sand on the beach should be designed as well.

So my original question stands, unless you think that your flimsy DNA source thingy applies to sand grains.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
why would God require repentance to save us, but not for us to"rescue those who sin against us."

Who are we to question any of God's requirements? But in this case we have some of the answers. We are told that only one Man has the authority to judge others, because only He can see men's hearts. We are told that our willingness to forgive is directly related to our own salvation.
 
Upvote 0