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 have no answer to my post--you just deny it?Yes, I agree. But evolution doesn't generate design but, rather, chaos as I noted. Therefore, evolution is untrue.
Of course - we don't have the time or facilities to study evolution for 364,000 years
That's true, but irrelevant - just as the material the pages in a book are made out of is irrelevant to the information in the book. We know that genetic information is coded at molecular level.
If God is the Designer, as one could believe if they like me believe God created all things, instead of only some things, then of course His design -- the Laws of Nature, physics, chemistry -- will work quite well ("and it was very good"), and not at all result in 'chaos' -- because it's His design, not yours or mine. See? We can only guess and try to figure out small details about creation not said in the text, such as mere time quantity (trivial numerical amounts) of years and such. Either way, no matter which totally trivial theory about such trivial details you or I think is the right one, all things are His creation.
Models and simulations are used in all scientific and technical fields to guide our understanding of real-world situations. They're the best way we have of understanding what will, or has, happened. As long as we acknowledge their limitations, they're useful tools.Then don't rely on it for your beliefs since it is based not on reality, but on fiction.
We already know what molecules are made up of, and how those components interact. The substrate isn't the code, and we know how the code is implemented - we can, and do, manipulate it for our own purposes, and when we change the substrate by using different nucleotide bases, it still works.No, you are guessing that it does. When the smaller components are finally catalogued who is to say what will appear.
This topic seems like it runs the risk of being trollish depending upon how it's pursued.The last thread I started commenting on this phenomenon got bogged down by trolls and eventually closed.
Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...
And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.
NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.
Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.
It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.
Would you consider Evolution based upon pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program) evidence of design?
He is the designer, and we are the stewards of His creation. In the "Garden of Eden" disease was unknown. It took the deviant acts of man to bring that about.
It's up to you, not us, what you look for.
As I said earlier, and obviously you chose to ignore it, I was referring to the creationist theories of a 10,000 year existence, and then to the secular claim of evolution when the article refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" just for the "evolution" of the eye.
But hey, you are welcome to your own beliefs, and your own arrogance.
Here's evidence: Assume materialistic evolution is true. Obviously there must be a designer
to design all the intricate biological lifeforms, randomness of mutations and gene copy errors can't design anything except chaos. But there is no mechanism within chemistry or biology or quantum mechanics for a designer to inject his designs. Therefore, young earth creationism is the correct view.
A living Being, with which Whom you'd hope to meet (a Savior no less!) -- that would be a relationship, not an inert object of 'evidence'.
It's like how if you wanted to meet a woman and marry, you'd not ask for evidence she is real even before you meet right at first contact, first communication, but instead you'd set up a local meeting and then find out directly.
Yes, I agree. But evolution doesn't generate design but, rather, chaos as I noted. Therefore, evolution is untrue.
This topic seems like it runs the risk of being trollish depending upon how it's pursued.
Something tangible and verifiable and not reliant upon 'already believing'.As one leaning toward Intelligent Design, I'd like to ask what would you consider evidence of design?
No, for that presupposes 'design' and ignores the fact that analogies are not evidence.Would you consider Evolution based upon pre-determined functional information (akin to the unfolding of a computer program) evidence of design?
No, since everyone knows that it was evolution which created everything. Magical evolution is God to the godless people who preach it. Amen?
Such a precious strawman!
Aman777 said:No, since everyone knows that it was evolution which created everything. Magical evolution is God to the godless people who preach it.
a. It's not a strawman but God's Truth,
unless you can tell us where the first creature, which evolved into a living kind, (cat, dog, fish, etc) came from. According to the Evol Religion, it was just there so we can ignore where it came from or as Stevie Hawking believed, came from nothing.
Strawman after strawman.
Boring.
b. According to Science, it came from its parents, which came from the last universal common ancestor, which came from WATER.
Yes... Science says life came from water.
You rank right down there is kenny.
No, for that presupposes 'design' and ignores the fact that analogies are not evidence.
Well, sure - asking creationists/designits for evidence for their claims is, oddly, seen as baiting or an attack. I guess that is how it goes when one realizes that they rely on mere beliefs.
It is an excellent question and it is unfortunate that ID proponents have not done a better job of both defining what would constitute evidence and then providing it: irreducible complexity simply doesn't make the grade. Here is my list of evidence for design:As one leaning toward Intelligent Design, I'd like to ask what would you consider evidence of design?
To challenge Creationism, you MUST have a counter argument, otherwise you have lost even before you begin!
WHY are you afraid to tell us how the world began. It is a very simple question
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?