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.
So you are saying that a person who accepts evolution does not believe in God?actually the opposite is true. creation is a fact base on scientific evidence (which i already showed)and common descent (for banana and cat for instance) base on a belief.
In the end, Xianghua's argumentation will doubtless turn out to be about the Bible, not about God, just like all the other creationists.My two cents is I’ve always leaned toward a combination of both – God created and then used evolution in ‘ways and time-frames’ that we’ll never completely understand. There’s no way to know all this stuff with certainty, unless you mistakenly think you can know what God does. Scientific knowledge is a gift that provides blessings in many ways, but I believe the Bible cautions us in 2 Peter 3:3-6 about thinking that everything goes on as it has from the beginning. Things have and will change rapidly and radically at His set times.
Tas### already posted some parts of scientific papers with references. Why don’t you go read them instead of glossing over them . 19th century scientists did emphatically state that they had the complete truth about what they proposed. Since some of them were ridiculously wrong, modern scientists understand that we don’t know everything and that all current info is subject to correction at a later date. However, no one has refuted the basic premise of evolution- that currently living and extinct organisms are kin. Nor has any other of the main parts of the theory been refuted( Like natural selection) . The only people who do complain about evolution are the 3M crowd. Mistaken, misunderstanding,and misinformed
LOL! It's not IQ you're lacking, it's willingness to take the risk that you might find it convincing.
where?
correct. but that was the main "flaw" your paper was talking about. so this is why i gave this paper as evidence against your paper.
not realy. since a cephalopod live underwater and build in a different way than many other creatures. so the fact that it has a different kind of eye structure doesnt prove its a flaw structure. also remember the point above that your paper already fail to identify a good design. so basically no one is able to identify a bad design.
The stumbling stone of the theory is the origin of living matter. The ToE is a thesis that has been built backward, like if a skyscraper were constructed beginning with the top floor suspended high above the ground. The floors are then hung in succession until the structure meets the ground. Only then is the foundation laid. However in the case of the theory there is no foundation, which is the origin of living matter.
i just go by your criteria. you said that all electric motor we know of were the product of design. but i said to you that i never seen someone who made them. so by your criteria i cnat conclude design till i will see someone who made an electric motor.
the same with the flagellum. this is an actual design and evolutionists said there is no evidence of design.
actually some scientists makes artificial genomes in the lab.
Those were not my criteria at all. I pointed out that there is copious evidence that electric motors are designed, including easy access to huge numbers of actual designs for real electric motors. Google patent search, for a start.
Has anyone made an artificial flagellum in the lab? If so, can you link to their design?
The paper talked about the glial cells, not the blind spot caused by the nerve routing.
It's easy to design a better vertebrate eye. Route the nerve better to remove the blind spot but leave the rest alone, including the glial cells.
Fish are also vertebrates, also have vertebrate eyes, and also live in water. Same for mammals such as dolphins and whales. Hence, your objection is invalid.
I'll give you this, when you are wrong you are wrong with an awesome consistency. If you had actually studied the development of evolutionary theory you would have recognised how fouled up your beliefs on the matter are.The stumbling stone of the theory is the origin of living matter. The ToE is a thesis that has been built backward, like if a skyscraper were constructed beginning with the top floor suspended high above the ground. The floors are then hung in succession until the structure meets the ground. Only then is the foundation laid. However in the case of the theory there is no foundation, which is the origin of living matter.
'The origin of living matter' is not part of the theory of evolution.
Evolution applies equally well whether or not the origin of life on earth was:
1] Natural abiogenesis
2] Creation of first cell by a God
3] Creation of first cells by advanced (but natural) aliens
4] Arrival of first cells by panspermia
5] Other origins that I haven't thought of.
There has been a lot of research on abiogenesis, and there are no insurmountable steps that require a supernatural explanation. Abiogenesis is plausible given what we know about life. However, there is nothing that we know that makes a supernatural God plausible. E.g. where is the domain where such a being would exist?
I'll give you this, when you are wrong you are wrong with an awesome consistency. If you had actually studied the development of evolutionary theory you would have recognised how fouled up your beliefs on the matter are.
so if we will see an electric motor on a far planet we cant conclude design till we will see womone who can make them?
someone made an artificial cilia that is very similar:
Swimming like algae: biomimetic soft artificial cilia
also: so you agree that for a genome there is evidence that its was designed?
who is talking about the blind spot? im talking about you paper claim that: "The most obvious design flaw of the retina is that the cellular layers are backwards. Light has to travel through multiple layers in order to get to the rods and cones that act as the photoreceptors. There is no functional reason for this arrangement—it is purely quirky and contingent."
its simply not true as we seen.
so where is your improved eyes then?
no. it can be because many different reasons we still dont know yet. its just a guess but it can be because they are invertebrate or because they are color blind or the combination of both or many other possibilities.
That's what many believe, but if you dig deeper it is still the most frustrating aspect of evolutionary science. The first life form, if such ever existed as thought, had to be so complex that it couldn't have arrived spontaneously. And because the 'hand of God' cannot be demonstrated supernatural creation is rejected out of hand, leaving only abiogenesis, which by science's own reckoning is virtually impossible. Evolution must discover the origin of life as it's foundation or the whole theory collapses, so what science has done is toss the red herring of "natural selection" on the table as the 'foundation of evolution', while working feverishly behind close doors to discover the necessary origin of life.
actually the opposite is true. creation is a fact base on scientific evidence (which i already showed)and common descent (for banana and cat for instance) base on a belief.
The ToE is still being developed, one assumption upon another. The theory depends entirely on the miraculous appearance of a highly developed, self sustaining, self-replicating life form, whose genesis is limited to purely natural means. The notion that such a life form just 'appeared' and then evolution 'took over' is patent nonsense.
There is a stench of intellectual dishonesty in that reply. You have been told multiple times that the Theory of Evolution is independent of the origin of life. Multiple explanations are possible for the origin. If and when we eventually identify which one is correct it will not alter the evidence for the ToE one iota. So, why do you keep recirculating the lie?The ToE is still being developed, one assumption upon another. The theory depends entirely on the miraculous appearance of a highly developed, self sustaining, self-replicating life form, whose genesis is limited to purely natural means. The notion that such a life form just 'appeared' and then evolution 'took over' is patent nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?