Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Poster0]

If creation theory had my car in the garage i wouldn't need to expect that i will be getting it back. As they wait for god to fix it. I might just need to buy a new car instead.

That's fair enough. I dont think that science can prove Gods existence anymore than it can prove that man was once an unintelligent ape like beast. Science cannot possibly answer all mysteries and it never will.

 

[Poster0]

It is a terrible analogy.

No it isn't. Its actually a pretty good one. Im not sure what analogy would be much better.

 

[Poster0]

If evolution had my car in the garage it would just discard any parts that it didnt understand, much like an appendix, and surely my car would end up in the scrap yard.

 

[paulm50]

If evolution had my car in the garage it would just discard any parts that it didn't understand, much like an appendix, and surely my car would end up in the scrap yard.

No it would work fine, just like I do and I wouldn't be waiting for god to tell us how to fix it.

That's not what said is it? I merely said that scientific research was comparable, but not exactly the same thing. Its comparable and could easily be used as an analogy. Have you ever used an analogy? Im sure you have.

Can we examine the bible and the edicts of religious scholars with the same critical detail you examine science?

 

[Poster0]

No it would work fine, just like I do and I wouldn't be waiting for god to tell us how to fix it.

Can we examine the bible and the edicts of religious scholars with the same critical detail you examine science?

Science and the Gospel are not the same kind of thing and cannot be compared like that. The Gospel is about God speaking into a person heart through His spirit. Its a spiritual thing rather than a materialistic thing, and therefore cannot possibly be compared. I would rather not be involved in any conversation that disrespects the Gospel. So i would ask that you please be respectful. If you want to criticize creation science then im sure that would be more appropriate.

 

[Poster0]

Im sorry for poking fun at evolution theory, i truly am. Its not my wish to be involved in contention, and i only want peace and i want to follow the path of love and humbleness of mind that the Lord has taught. Its also not my wish to misrepresent the Gospel of truth, peace and love, and so please forgive my indiscretion. Thank you.

 

[Larniavc]

No it isn't. Its actually a pretty good one. Im not sure what analogy would be much better.

There is no need for an analogy, good or bad. A description of scientific research is quite straight forwards.

 

[bhsmte]

People can also live without both kidneys, or even both eyes, but they are far from useless. You have showed why evolution theory is so flawed. It doesn't actually use scientific reasoning but instead uses illogical assumptions.

If you have any logical support for your conclusions, you may win the Nobel prize.

Go for it!

 

[bhsmte]

Im sorry for poking fun at evolution theory, i truly am. Its not my wish to be involved in contention, and i only want peace and i want to follow the path of love and humbleness of mind that the Lord has taught. Its also not my wish to misrepresent the Gospel of truth, peace and love, and so please forgive my indiscretion. Thank you.

Don't worry, we are all getting a good laugh.

 

[Poster0]

Don't worry, we are all getting a good laugh.

Thank you. Have pleasant day.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A theory is something that's not proven, natural selection has been proven.

Natural selection is an observation, not a theory. The theory is built around the observation. But I don't see how that relates to your earlier post. But never mind.

I said on some people. I had mine out 55 years ago. No problems. Not essential either.

It was your logic I was disputing; the fact that we can live without them doesn't mean they're useless.

As it happens, the appendix is thought to function as a reservoir of gut bacteria in case of illnesses causing severe diarrhoea (if you don't have one, you're four times more likely to have recurrences after serious gut infection).

 

[stevevw]

Ice is water. It's H2O. Just like ice on Earth. Wherever H2O is it is H2O.

What 'other' form of H2O is there?

No not necessarily and certainly the ice on other planets is not the type of frozen water we have here on earth. Scientists say that the frozen liquid on other planets could be other things like methane liquid. As I said they have been able to test this yet so its all speculation. But remember we are talking about the special type of water on earth being unique. It needs certain things to be able to make it the type of water that sustains life. One of those is the right sort of atmosphere. Earth is in the right place in what they call the habitation zone. If it is any closer or further away from the sun it wouldn't produce life. If earth was any bigger or smaller it would be the same. If we didn't have our moon and its size and relation to earth it would affect our atmosphere.

Our atmosphere is just right for producing water and life. There are many other factors that need to be just right to produce earths water and life. Even the size and position of the planets outside of earths rotation need to be in the right place and size. Scientists have found some planets they say are just about the right position to possibly hold an atmosphere and produce water and possibly life. But they just cant tell at the moment as they would need to go there and do tests. So the water that you are talking about is ice and it is not the same water as we have to sustain life. It will either be a water that cannot sustain life or a frozen chemical like methane.

 

[Larniavc]

No not necessarily and certainly the ice on other planets is not the type of frozen water we have here on earth. Scientists say that the frozen liquid on other planets could be other things like methane liquid. As I said they have been able to test this yet so its all speculation. But remember we are talking about the special type of water on earth being unique. It needs certain things to be able to make it the type of water that sustains life. One of those is the right sort of atmosphere. Earth is in the right place in what they call the habitation zone. If it is any closer or further away from the sun it wouldn't produce life. If earth was any bigger or smaller it would be the same. If we didn't have our moon and its size and relation to earth it would affect our atmosphere.

Our atmosphere is just right for producing water and life. There are many other factors that need to be just right to produce earths water and life. Even the size and position of the planets outside of earths rotation need to be in the right place and size. Scientists have found some planets they say are just about the right position to possibly hold an atmosphere and produce water and possibly life. But they just cant tell at the moment as they would need to go there and do tests. So the water that you are talking about is ice and it is not the same water as we have to sustain life. It will either be a water that cannot sustain life or a frozen chemical like methane.

When I talk about extra terrestrial H2O I am not talking about extra terrestrial CH4. H2O is not CH4. Why you think this is the case is beyond me.

H20 at the poles of Mars is the same H2O at the poles of Earth.

You seem to be confusing solid water with solid methane. Understand that the the formular of water is H2O, whether or not it is solid or gas. It is always H2O. Changing the formular of H2O means it is no longer water. For example 2H2O is deuterium oxide (not water which is H2O).

Water on Earth is exactly the same as water on Mars. It is H2O: that is what water is. Water on Earth (be it solid, liquid or gaseous) is NOT different from water found on Mars.

To repeat: there is NO difference between water found on Earth to water found on Mars or comets or Saturns rings.

 

[stevevw]

When I talk about extra terrestrial H2O I am not talking about extra terrestrial CH4. H2O is not CH4. Why you think this is the case is beyond me.

H20 at the poles of Mars is the same H2O at the poles of Earth.

You seem to be confusing solid water with solid methane. Understand that the the formular of water is H2O, whether or not it is solid or gas. It is always H2O. Changing the formular of H2O means it is no longer water. For example 2H2O is deuterium oxide (not water which is H2O).

Water on Earth is exactly the same as water on Mars. It is H2O: that is what water is. Water on Earth (be it solid, liquid or gaseous) is NOT different from water found on Mars.

To repeat: there is NO difference between water found on Earth to water found on Mars or comets or Saturns rings.

The ice they have found cannot sustain life and while it freezes to that point life cannot survive. So they have found ice but no liquid as yet. There are traces of liquid but they still dont know whether it can sustain life. The tests they have done on Mars shows that the rocks are twice as salty and acidic as earths so no life could survive any water that may have been there anyway. At the moment its all speculation. But like I said they would never find water like ours on any of the planets in our solar system because the conditions are not right. They have no atmospheres to generate life sustaining water. They would have to find a planet in a similar position as earths.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The ice they have found cannot sustain life and while it freezes to that point life cannot survive. So they have found ice but no liquid as yet. There are traces of liquid but they still dont know whether it can sustain life. The tests they have done on Mars shows that the rocks are twice as salty and acidic as earths so no life could survive any water that may have been there anyway. At the moment its all speculation. But like I said they would never find water like ours on any of the planets in our solar system because the conditions are not right. They have no atmospheres to generate life sustaining water. They would have to find a planet in a similar position as earths.

Which has already happened.

 

[Larniavc]

But like I said they would never find water like ours on any of the planets in our solar system because the conditions are not right.

Water is the same everywhere it is found. I'm specifically talking about water; as in H2O. 'Liquid' does not mean specifically water.

H2O on Earth is the same as H2O on Mars. Do you think a molecule of H2O found on Mars is different to a molecule of H2O found on Earth? If so, which part of the H or the 2O is different and how?

 

[Larniavc]

They have no atmospheres to generate life sustaining water.

Where did that atmospheric water come from? Comets seems like a good bet. Or do you think comet H2O is different from Earth H2O?

 

[Troy Rambo]

Many claim everything on Earth is from a god or Intelligent Design. Claiming Natural Selection couldn't create something as involved and complex as all the species on Earth.

And yet, evidence comes up all the time of how unintelligent the design of these species are. Early humans migrated out of Africa through Egypt rather than Ethiopia, new study says.

Natural selection, which is proven. Isn't intelligent. It's hit and miss, creatures evolve and become extinct as climates change, continents shift, and even asteroids hit the Earth. Or even one animal, Man, develops faster than others and kill off other species.

To claim that was gods work or remotely intelligent is, in my opinion, ignoring the obvious.

I used to think that the way our bodies and organs were made testified to evolution too. I thought thought that if there was a God, our bodies could have been just made of solid plastic or something and filled with a soul.

Our similiarity to animals makes a good argument that we are related to them which could be seen as more evidence of evolution. But the thing is, we have the ability to discern right from wrong. If we say we evolved over millions of years like animals did, then why didnt we become like all the other animals in the world and not have free will like they do?

Our ability to know right from wrong testifies to the truth of God and the Bible among many other things.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The ice they have found cannot sustain life and while it freezes to that point life cannot survive. So they have found ice but no liquid as yet. There are traces of liquid but they still dont know whether it can sustain life.

You can't have 'no liquid' and 'traces of liquid'. Both Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn) have vast oceans of liquid water beneath a frozen surface - Europa's is thought to be more than twice the total volume of Earth's oceans. Ganymede (Jupiter) also has indications of a large subsurface ocean of liquid water.

The tests they have done on Mars shows that the rocks are twice as salty and acidic as earths so no life could survive any water that may have been there anyway.

Just as on Earth, in some areas that is true, in other areas, the deposits show the chemistry could have supported microbial life - see NASA Rover Finds Conditions Once Suited for Ancient Life on Mars.

But like I said they would never find water like ours on any of the planets in our solar system because the conditions are not right.

We don't know that yet. Plenty of water has been found.

They have no atmospheres to generate life sustaining water.

You don't need an atmosphere to have life-sustaining water; water isn't 'generated' by the atmosphere.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where did that atmospheric water come from? Comets seems like a good bet. Or do you think comet H2O is different from Earth H2O?

Actually, the measurements of the deuterium ratio of water on 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko made by Rosetta are significantly different from Earth's water, but that of asteroids is identical to Earth's; so, unless 67P/C-G is unusual for a comet, it seems more likely we got ours from asteroids. See Rosetta fuels debate on origins of Earth's oceans.