Evidence for Design (3)

[createdtoworship]

It is strongly suggested that repentence is necessary for the forgiveness and sanctification that Jesus bestows, but we are specifically told that we are to offer our forgiveness freely and unconditionally, and that it is our offering such forgiveness, even before repentence, that might rescue those who sin against us.

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

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

How high do ostriches and penguins fly, I wonder.....hmmm!

they don't

 

[createdtoworship]

I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

yup, thats what I thought.

 

[Loudmouth]

they don't

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

 

[EternalDragon]

they don't

I would rather think it is a loss of function rather than the other way around.

Many of the things evolutionists propose are backwards.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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?

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

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

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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?

 

[createdtoworship]

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...

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

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...

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.

 

[OllieFranz]

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.

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.

 

[Kylie]

its so obvious that you missed it. IF every biological organism was designed versus evolved, you may simply be overlooking it. Now I have given you links, peer reviews, and no lunch theorums, if you don't like the info then thats your jibe. But I am not talking this any more with you.

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.

 

[OllieFranz]

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.

 

[Kylie]

Who are we to question any of God's requirements?

I've found that this usually means, "It makes no sense, but I believe it anyway."