"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[DogmaHunter]

How did it evolve through a process of random chance?

1. why are you "answering" my question with another, irrelevant, question?

2. evolution isn't a random process.


Now please, try to answer my question. What specific part about my post concerning "common sense" that you quoted, don't you agree with and why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The physical evidense shows you to be incorrect. You too should review post 3.

Post 3 amounts to nothing more then a fallacious argument from incredulity / ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem is that when Atheist observe nature going about its complex organized business to them it simply proves that nature is quite capable of winging it on its own while to a believer in a creator it shouts design. In short, the atheist mind seems totally incapable of making the required inductive leap from general to specific that most of mankind effortlessly manages to make.

No.

In this context, the main difference between an atheist (or intellectually honest theist) and a creationist, is that an atheist will say "I don't know, let's try and found out" when confronted with an unexplained phenomena of reality. While the crationist will be very quick to simply assert that "we don't know, so god must have done it".


I make a distinction between the "intellectually honest theist" and the "creationist", because in reality, most theists actually have no problems at all with science.

Read my signature for a great example.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So I and many, many others say. Can you refute it?

Maybe you should first try and support your claims, before asking others to refute it.

 

[Jimmy D]

So I and many, many others say. Can you refute it?

Refute what? All you have said is that it's too complicated, it can't have evolved. You're welcome to your opinion but don't pretend it's anything more than that.

Edit: That was a weird DH, we both replied to the same post simutaneously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime?

No, the geological column as it exists in reality, is not what we expect to find in a world that's only 6000 years old and which completely flooded 4000 years ago.

Not even remotely.

 

[DogmaHunter]

From what I read...The term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.

I also read...
First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2 So, if these viral-like sequences are not millions of years old, then where did they come from?

You can read more about them here and here and here

.....but then again those links are from creationist sites.....so they really don't count.

Indeed, they don't count.

Just like you don't count on your car mechanics to diagnose your cancer.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then you should have no problem explaining how the process evolved.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you think I've extensively Organelle evolution? Believe it or not I don't profess to be an expert in an area I haven't studied.

 

[Radrook]

No.

In this context, the main difference between an atheist (or intellectually honest theist) and a creationist, is that an atheist will say "I don't know, let's try and found out" when confronted with an unexplained phenomena of reality. While the crationist will be very quick to simply assert that "we don't know, so god must have done it".


I make a distinction between the "intellectually honest theist" and the "creationist", because in reality, most theists actually have no problems at all with science.

Read my signature for a great example.

That is a crass misrepresentation of how the conclusion that intelligent design is involved is reached. Which goes to show once again the total inability of the atheist mind to make the necessary inductive leap if it requires the conclusion be intelligent design. Actually, it really isn't an intellectual deficit as much as it is an involuntary, emotionally-induced phenomenon stemming from an extreme aversion to anything that is deemed to smack of the religious although it might not necessarily be of a religious nature. Ironically, such a modus operandi is the antithesis of the scientific method which demands a totally objective approach in the systematic search and discovery of truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Refute what? All you have said is that it's too complicated, it can't have evolved. You're welcome to your opinion but don't pretend it's anything more than that.

Edit: That was a weird DH, we both replied to the same post simutaneously.

Clearly that can't be a coincidence! Clearly, God has our backs!
I mean... what are the chances, right????

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is a crass misrepresentation of how the conclusion that intelligent design is involved is reached. Which goes to show once again the total inability of the atheist mind to make the necessary inductive leap if it requires the conclusion be intelligent design. Actually, it really isn't an intellectual deficit as much as it is an involuntary, emotionally-induced phenomenon stemming from an extreme aversion to anything that is deemed to smack of the religious although it might not necessarily be of a religious nature. Ironically, such a modus operandi is the antithesis of the scientific method which demands a totally objective approach in the systematic search and discovery of truth.

Dude..... did you read the quote in my signature?

Those are the words of a devout christian. It proves how your generalisation here is ridiculous. Accepting the findings of biology, geology, etc has nothing to do with atheism and everything with the evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

No.

In this context, the main difference between an atheist (or intellectually honest theist) and a creationist, is that an atheist will say "I don't know, let's try and found out" when confronted with an unexplained phenomena of reality. While the crationist will be very quick to simply assert that "we don't know, so god must have done it".


I make a distinction between the "intellectually honest theist" and the "creationist", because in reality, most theists actually have no problems at all with science.

Read my signature for a great example.

This is such an important distinction.

If 'honesty' is the reliable, valid, accurate, resilient means by which we approach and uncover truth, then the descriptor 'dishonest' is more than apt for the creationist.

By this, I don't accuse them of lying. Lying involves a deliberate intention to present falsehoods. I literally mean that they use a 'non-honest' analysis in constructing their world view. It is an unreliable process, incapable of verification.

It is the antithesis of 'honest'.

 

[SteveB28]

Just for the record...at this point I stopped reading your reply. For you to make such a claim...deception must be your ploy. You certainly weren't honest with that reply.

And the rest of his message scares you, doesn't it? For you to read it encompasses the 'danger' that you might actually learn something and have your understanding improved.

And you can't risk that, can you?

 

[Armoured]

Listen to you. You were caught presenting the same type of "misinformation". At least be honest. Sheeze.

It's not misinformation just because you really really want it to be.

 

[SteveB28]

The authors of the NT present them as true.

And Homer presents the Odyssey as true. So what?

 

[AV1611VET]

I will wait to hear what Kang and Kodos have to say on the matter AV

I'm afraid you're gonna get Abaddon aka Apollyon instead.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a reason professional creationists avoid ever actually explaining any genetic data.

Sfs, please explain a loaf of raisin bread created ex nihilo (since it contains aged grapes), and/or explain a bunch of bananas created ex nihilo (since they are man-made hybrids), using all that gobbledygook science.

My guess is: you can't, without accusing God of being deceptive.

 

[loveofourlord]

I can post a picture of a fossilized hat. Now I don't think it happened in a year. But it could of.

WRONG< you can post something that has a outercasing of calcium and such, but it's not stone, You leave a hat in some kinds of water and it gets caked, but it's still a hat, these arn't seashells, there is nothing left of the original animals.

 

[loveofourlord]

My head, for starters.

Anyway, given the possible pressures involved with the amount of water and the large amount of dirt & debris, I'm sure it set the stage for some of it to be solidified over a much shorter period of time. There were man-made objects found embedded in solid lumps of coal, so either mankind is hundreds of millions of years old(not!), or we do not have a very clear picture of how these things were formed and the specific environment involved.

I'm also of the opinion that the 6-day creation period covered a much greater expanse of time as opposed to it consisting of a literal 24 hours for each day. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord.

Again like the other poster you don't know the difference between turned to stone and incased IN stone. And no pressure can not turn something from into stone, at best it would crush the animal, fossils is where the original creature has been completly replaced by stone and other material, not encased, not crushed. If you take fossilized seashells your going to get tests coming back saying they are some type of rock, not calcium carbonite.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Homer presents the Odyssey as true. So what?

ASSUMING it didn't happen as documented, then Homer lied.