- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Upvote
0
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're cool with children debating whether or not the holocaust happened?
I don't have a problem with that, but 1/10000th wing would not give a small advantage in jumping but even reduce air resistance as you got some useless flesh, and this keeps lumping on top of each other, till one day, it becomes useful to glide? Ofcourse not, natural selection doesn't explain this, because it's not even not simply not advantageous, it's disadvantageous to have 1/1000 wing that don't provide an extra glide or jump or anything.
Your thinking of something appearing designed, that it helps glide, it would take a long process to get there, and that long process to be an advantage each step, but it's not, it's useless.
That is why a wing is impossible.
Now a wing is just one thing, how about what was said about a system? What about an ear? What good is 1/100 of an ear? or 1/10 of an ear?
Evolution does not equal atheism. The first is a process or the theory explaining the process. The other is a stand on the existence of God. They are not that easy to confuse.I posted this on RichardDawkin's site but it has not been approved, I got impatient and decided to post it here:
By the Name of God.
I think this century people tend to sell their minds to people and stick to cliches and slogans without every deeply thinking about a matter.
Evolution is not a new thing of this century. In many times before that, there existed Atheists, whom believe the universe didn't have a Creator and Designer. They existed long before Darwin. Of course they didn't believe when they looked at animals that they popped into design out of no where, but that process took place that lead to this. The details of their theory there was none and they also had no idea how complicated life was.
We?Now the issue is natural selection in itself a possible explanation to the many signs of a Designer and Creator we see?
You said it. 'Virtually no advantage' would confer a slight advantage. This slight advantage could be enough to make a difference.Take for example the Bird. I really think we should think about this. I'm not going to go into the detail of how the lungs and other things all must correspond to fly, but let's simple talk about the issue of wings and flight.
Micro evolution never provides a huge significant change in one generation. It's suppose to be minor changes that over a very long period of time that leads up to a positive change with help of the mechanism of natural selection.
Now 1/10 wing or anything in development, won't even glide let alone fly. It provides virtually no advantage at all.
Sensing large vibrations through the air confers no advantage? So a minor mutation that is able to pick up a wider range of vibrations or smaller vibrations would convey no advantage?Thus natural selection doesn't apply here. It would not get fined tuned. This an example we can easily relate to.
However there is countless instances of this in creation. There is countless things that inbetween stages of it are of absolutely no advantage.
An ear for example that doesn't work, there is no advantage at all of having an ear that doesn't work. Either it has to be developped fully to work or it isn't.
Not really. Mutation and natural selection is the mechanism, not the basis. DNA, population dispersion, morphology, and/or fossil record is the basis.This is now an argument that applies in all ages. It his the basis of the theory.
Not really. Fruits are a pretty good way to spread seeds. They even get deposited some distance away in a nice pile of fertilizer. Some fruit seeds will not even germinate without passing through the digestive tract of an animal.We can apply this thinking to many things that really, we should ask , why have we lucked out so much? Take for example fruits. We see trees without fruits are more numerous. There is really no need of developing fruits through stages, as they are not advantage over the non-fruit trees which are more spread and numerous.
So how do we have fruits? Indeed fruits are sign of a Creator.
Domesticated plants and animals prove evolution! The simple fact that we can breed for certain features shows how selection can have a profound impact on a species.And if we ponder over ridable animals. What are the chances we ever get them? Think about it. It's still a very low chance that ridable animals exist in the 1st place out of the many animals that exist. Yet we have them. And what would mankind do without them.
And now we stray from evolution. If we didn't have iron, we would have used something else.Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer.
The water in a depression molds itself to fit the contours of the depression and that means it was Designed?It's the way you choose to think. Things add up. Now there is aside from this other logical proof of a Creator. But I am simply talking about design of things.
Everything? Large order there. Even one thing would send it tumbling down.There is also the golden ratio which we should really think about. Why are things not far away from the golden ratio but about there with it. Things would look ugly without the golden ratio. Yet through creation, we see constantly, the golden ratio. Is this not a proof of creator. If things were all to chance, you would expect some super ugly far from golden ratio things also survive and make it. So the beauty in creation is another sign. We don't see abominable creation, we see everything designed on the golden ratio which is a huge sign of a designer.
Um, it is an argument from ignorance. Sorry.Now a cell as we know is very complicated like a city. There is no way this could have come through random process. This is not appeal to ignorance we say this, it's knowledge of design. And not only did it have to form, but it had to replicate itself, and be able to survive.
I don't understand this one. Pass.Now if we think about so many things, like, just our tongue and various sounds we make. Our mind and the logic we have.
When did "logic" first develop? All sorts of these questions in which we will recognize there is a Desinger. Logic is not a simple issue. It covers so many things and applies to so many things. However inbetween stage of illogic and logic is useless. If things were illogical and didn't rationalize what they saw, it would be useless. There is ofcourse stages of conciousness and use of logic, but logic itself again is something that is either there or not.
Except for the ability to eat nylon. Or for E. coli to use citrate.If we think about the matter deeply, when we think marcoevolution, natural selection doesn't really prove anything. This specially when we consider that mutations simply change what is already there and don't really add new entire things.
Not when we have domesticated them, you are right.Now if we ponder over the many fruits and vegetables we have, we all have to admit, this didn't have to be all here. How does this not count for design? Some fruits, but this many, when trees without fruits are doing better then trees with fruits? So how does natural selection cover this? It doesn't.
Irreducable complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.1/10 development of wings can't be advantage so it shows there is a Designer.
Birds prove a Creator. Now microevolution I have no problem with. However, even to say that is random is not fair. Mircoevolution occurs because of a design in nature. This is why it occurs. However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened.
I gave a simple example of a bird because we can all relate to it. There is all sorts of things that the same logic applies, and this includes systems working together, a half system will entirely fail when everything has a use. A useless thing will never be part of it, because natural selection would pick it out. So either everything in a system has to be working together or not. For example, lungs that don't work are of no use. All the other parts that are in need of lungs and work with it, are of no use without it.
Haste? 10,000 years of scientific exploration is haste?So if we really think about nature, it's clearly evident there is a Desinger. Be humble about it and don't call Creationist stupid and what not.
Even if somehow (it's impossible but for sake of argument) that evolution was possible without a designer, there is a lot of things that still can prove a Creator. So where is the haste in concluding there is no proof of a Creator?
Get more knowledge in science. There are tons of resources available on the Web for you to pick up more knowledge.Let's keep thinking and not get be put down by people claiming to be more intelligent then the average person. We shouldn't be afraid to think and ponder just because we don't have as much knowledge in science.
------
What do Atheists have to say?
I posted this, or at least I thought I posted it, but I must have closed my browser before... AskTheFamily, I applaud your effort. Tough topic to tackle. What if someone told you that God as we believe Him is an ALIEN (Extra-terrestrial) entity and this was all an alien conspiracy? How do you answer that?
No they aren't.
I don't expect you guys to believe in anything when you deny your own soul that you witness every day and say you have no soul, just cells and chemicals, so I don't expect you to believe I will admit defeat if it should come.
However, I realize with Atheists, they will not accept metaphysical proofs because they deny morality when they realize for it be to be absolute it has to have Eternal Basis, they deny honor, highness, purity, etc, etc... whenever their souls realize it proves the Eternal.
You said it. 'Virtually no advantage' would confer a slight advantage. This slight advantage could be enough to make a difference.
Sensing large vibrations through the air confers no advantage? So a minor mutation that is able to pick up a wider range of vibrations or smaller vibrations would convey no advantage?
Not really. Mutation and natural selection is the mechanism, not the basis. DNA, population dispersion, morphology, and/or fossil record is the basis.
Not really. Fruits are a pretty good way to spread seeds.
Domesticated plants and animals prove evolution! The simple fact that we can breed for certain features shows how selection can have a profound impact on a species.
Irreducable complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
First, your attack on atheists shows how weak you feel your position is.
Second, deny morality? Deny honor? Highness? Purity?I guess if you are out to lose credibility, might as well go all the way.
they accept it, till they realize it proves something they don't want it to prove (God).
They they go re-invent what morality means, re-invent terms to mean whole new things.
From what I have read, you believe microevolution is true. So why not macroevolution? Lots of small changes over the course of a long time equals one big change.
Now the issue is natural selection in itself a possible explanation to the many signs of a Designer and Creator we see?
Take for example the Bird. I really think we should think about this. I'm not going to go into the detail of how the lungs and other things all must correspond to fly, but let's simple talk about the issue of wings and flight.
Micro evolution never provides a huge significant change in one generation. It's suppose to be minor changes that over a very long period of time that leads up to a positive change with help of the mechanism of natural selection.
Now 1/10 wing or anything in development, won't even glide let alone fly. It provides virtually no advantage at all. Thus natural selection doesn't apply here. It would not get fined tuned. This an example we can easily relate to.
However there is countless instances of this in creation. There is countless things that inbetween stages of it are of absolutely no advantage.
An ear for example that doesn't work, there is no advantage at all of having an ear that doesn't work. Either it has to be developped fully to work or it isn't.
This is now an argument that applies in all ages. It his the basis of the theory.
We can apply this thinking to many things that really, we should ask , why have we lucked out so much?
Take for example fruits. We see trees without fruits are more numerous. There is really no need of developing fruits through stages, as they are not advantage over the non-fruit trees which are more spread and numerous.
So how do we have fruits? Indeed fruits are sign of a Creator.
And if we ponder over ridable animals. What are the chances we ever get them? Think about it. It's still a very low chance that ridable animals exist in the 1st place out of the many animals that exist. Yet we have them. And what would mankind do without them.
Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer.
It's the way you choose to think. Things add up. Now there is aside from this other logical proof of a Creator. But I am simply talking about design of things.
There is also the golden ratio which we should really think about. Why are things not far away from the golden ratio but about there with it. Things would look ugly without the golden ratio. Yet through creation, we see constantly, the golden ratio. Is this not a proof of creator.
If things were all to chance, you would expect some super ugly far from golden ratio things also survive and make it. So the beauty in creation is another sign. We don't see abominable creation, we see everything designed on the golden ratio which is a huge sign of a designer.
Now a cell as we know is very complicated like a city. There is no way this could have come through random process.
This is not appeal to ignorance we say this, it's knowledge of design. And not only did it have to form, but it had to replicate itself, and be able to survive.
Now if we think about so many things, like, just our tongue and various sounds we make. Our mind and the logic we have.
When did "logic" first develop?
All sorts of these questions in which we will recognize there is a Desinger. Logic is not a simple issue. It covers so many things and applies to so many things. However inbetween stage of illogic and logic is useless. If things were illogical and didn't rationalize what they saw, it would be useless. There is ofcourse stages of conciousness and use of logic, but logic itself again is something that is either there or not.
If we think about the matter deeply, when we think marcoevolution, natural selection doesn't really prove anything. This specially when we consider that mutations simply change what is already there and don't really add new entire things.
Now if we ponder over the many fruits and vegetables we have, we all have to admit, this didn't have to be all here. How does this not count for design? Some fruits, but this many, when trees without fruits are doing better then trees with fruits? So how does natural selection cover this? It doesn't.
1/10 development of wings can't be advantage so it shows there is a Designer.
Birds prove a Creator. Now microevolution I have no problem with. However, even to say that is random is not fair. Mircoevolution occurs because of a design in nature. This is why it occurs. However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened.
I gave a simple example of a bird because we can all relate to it. There is all sorts of things that the same logic applies, and this includes systems working together, a half system will entirely fail when everything has a use. A useless thing will never be part of it, because natural selection would pick it out. So either everything in a system has to be working together or not. For example, lungs that don't work are of no use. All the other parts that are in need of lungs and work with it, are of no use without it.
So if we really think about nature, it's clearly evident there is a Desinger. Be humble about it and don't call Creationist stupid and what not.
Even if somehow (it's impossible but for sake of argument) that evolution was possible without a designer, there is a lot of things that still can prove a Creator. So where is the haste in concluding there is no proof of a Creator?
Let's keep thinking and not get be put down by people claiming to be more intelligent then the average person. We shouldn't be afraid to think and ponder just because we don't have as much knowledge in science.
What do Atheists have to say?
Asserting you know what an entire group of people think and why they do things is irrational.
I'll take this as my cue to depart from this discussion with you.
Oh, dear...
AskTheFamily, I would suggest that you post your refutation in the Creation & Evolution forum, because the people there are best qualified to tear your post down.
But not all types of big changes. They can have big changes but not all types of changes are possible.
As for why not macroevolution, I shown why. As for having to accept both, as both become possible, this is blind cliche, and rhetoric that has become dogma of blind people rejecting their Creator despite the evidence of a Designer.
I didn't attack mutations and change, I showed specific things that cannot be explained by this process of mutations and natural selection.
Why exclude certain 'big changes'?
I meant no advantage at all.
It would be hearing if it can receive vibrations and convey it. An ear that cannot pick up vibrations is useless, am I correct? So it had to be able to pick vibrations and not only that, but the brain analyzing it and making use of it. There could not have been a process to lead to this with blind chance and natural selection.
DNA is just a matter of how you look at things.
Fossil evidence, there is lack of evidence in fossil evidence and it's all imagination that fills the gaps.
Yet trees without fruits are doing better? So no advantage of fruits over none-fruits, so how do you explain the numerous fruits we have?
I have no problem with this type of stuff. Just because one type of change can occur, doesn't mean anything can become anything. And the latter has been proven impossible.
Proof? I showed my reasoning, show how it's flawed.
AsktheFamily,
It seems clear to me that a mechanism that improves jumping could turn out to also make gliding possible. Gliding is, really, just a long aerodynamic leap.
The transition from feeling vibrations to hearing, it's an ear, right? But for it develop to stage of "hearing", what's the inbetween steps? What's the process? It feels, then all of sudden hears? And if not, what's the inbetween step?If a creature has bones, it may not need ears at all to 'hear'. Vibrations can be picked up in the bones and the noises felt. Hearing is just a much much more efficient way to do this.
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?