What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

Wonderful. If they were so beautifully designed and function so well, why didn't the "designer" implement the design in other organisms? You know, sort of how all designers put wheels into their designs for automobiles because they function so well.

Who wants to drive a car that jumps like a grasshopper.

 

[xianghua]

Wonderful. If they were so beautifully designed and function so well, why didn't the "designer" implement the design in other organisms? You know, sort of how all designers put wheels into their designs for automobiles because they function so well.

since many creatures have no such gears and since they are alive threfore they dont need these gears.

 

[MIDutch]

If they are advocating for the 'chemistry' of organically fertile soil instead of chemical fertility I'm all in.

They are. Pesticide and water use have dropped precipitously due to agricultural innovations spearheaded by Wageningen unversity and their agricultural partners. As I said, check out

 

[MIDutch]

since many creatures have no such gears and since they are alive threfore they dont need these gears.

You missed the point entirely. If these gears are so useful and efficient, then a GOOD designer would utilize their engineered effectiveness in other platforms. What would prevent a GOOD designer from using them in other platforms that have the same functionality requirements?

 

[MIDutch]

Who wants to drive a car that jumps like a grasshopper.

A lot of people evidently.

 

[GodsGrace101]

There is no evidence that "things were created as they are". Indeed, it is quite the opposite.

I know this is what you believe.
But how did a tree get to be a tree?
How did water get to be water?

I may be very ignorant...
or I may just believe that someone/thing MADE IT.

 

[Jimmy D]

since many creatures have no such gears and since they are alive threfore they dont need these gears.

Lol, how often do we hear the ignorant slogan “common design!” when IDers are asked to explain nested hierarchies?

Creationism in a nutshell.... just make anything up to justify any argument.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Science has plenty of answers for all sorts of "questions", but there is a certain segment of the world's population who refuse to accept the evidence in support of those answers. That's why these creationism "debate" forums exist.

Is Pluto a planet?
Was science right THEN or NOW?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I respectfully suggest you have not reflected properly on my remarks. The universe is a vastly complex place. We have learned a great deal about it, but we have so much more to learn - that is why there are still questions and why there will be questions for many millenia to come. To think otherwise you would have to ignore what we have already learned about the universe, disregard the complexity, fail to be inspired by those seeking to answer those questions and overlook the answers that have already been found.

That has been answered.

And yet, presumably, you have no difficulty in accepting that a one celled organism can become a human being in nine months? (And the larger, evolutionary question you ask has also been answered.)

We have a conscience because a sapient, sentient social species that lacked a conscience would not long survive. A conscience is essential to ensure a measure of altruistic behaviour is present.

Rational thought is rather uncommon in humans. The scientific method creates a set of railroad tracks that force thought along rational lines.

I am bemused that you would ask "how could we think up something that doesn't exist?" I presume you must believe that the Star Wars films are documentaries!

That is one of the really great unanswered questions. If I were closer to the beginning of my life than its end, then I might have a chance of seeing it answered.

Behaviour of a brain in shut-down mode.

They have been and if you had chosen a single question to focus on, as I asked, rather than a somewhat discourteous Gish Gallop, I would have attempted to give you a fuller answer. Is that the question you want to focus on? Fish to mammal?

I don't understand why you think this is important, but for the record scientists do not believe the universe came from absolutely nothing.

Science never proves anything. Science either provides an explanation for observations that are superior to any other available explanation, or disproves candidate explanations.

GodsGrace, I recognise that you might interpret my direct style as belligerent. It is not so intended. What I note in most of your observations is an extensive ignorance of scientific findings and the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with ignorance as such, given that we are all ignorant of very much more than we are knowledgeable of. However, I suggest it is foolish to express opinions about something one is ignorant about, especially when a wealth of knowledge on that topic exists. You have listed several questions you think are unanswered. They have been answered. The answers are available to you, but it will require effort on your part to acquire them. Are you ready to put in that effort, or do you wish to remain ignorant?

You mean Star Wars is NOT A DOCUMENTARY!
Uffa.

I guess our conversation is over.
I never claimed to be a scientist.
But I know I'm not ignorant about science either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A lot of people evidently.

Touche'.

 

[Ophiolite]

You mean Star Wars is NOT A DOCUMENTARY!
Uffa.

I guess our conversation is over.
I never claimed to be a scientist.
But I know I'm not ignorant about science either.

I am very sorry you are taking that position. I did not say you claimed to be a scientist, but to make fundamental pronouncements about science and it findings, while being ignorant of those findings is logically and ethically questionable.

Numerous statements in your posts clearly demonstrate that your knowledge of science is very limited and in many cases simply wrong. I regret you choose to ignore that. Self imposed ignorance is an unattractive thing.

I regret even more that you reject my offer to help educate you, if only to a small extent, on some of these matters, preferring to remain ignorant of them. You were happy to accept the link to information about Paley's Creationist apology, but turn away from anything that presents the other side of the argument. That is sad.

In the context of this thread one of the things that Creationists need to do to win against evolution is to open their eyes to the massive evidence for evolution, not close them firmly as you have done.

 

[Speedwell]

Is Pluto a planet?
Was science right THEN or NOW?

Both times. The name change was merely a matter of a definition. It didn't change Pluto or what we know about it in any way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They are. Pesticide and water use have dropped precipitously due to agricultural innovations spearheaded by Wageningen unversity and their agricultural partners. As I said, check out

I checked up on them. There are problems with those programs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You will note that my post started with "study the Cosmos". That's a bit broader scope than just biological evolution.

Our focus should be on our problems here on earth. In that regard the faster we abandon modern agriculture the better off we'll be. We also need to consult creationism (religion) to solve our overpopulation problem. In fact all of the problems brought on by science can be solved by studying and applying God's word.

 

[MIDutch]

We also need to consult creationism (religion) to solve our overpopulation problem.

Yeah, there's lots of examples of "solutions" in those creationism stories. They usually involve one group of people completely slaughtering another "in the righteous name of the Lord". I suppose those "solutions" would definitely solve our overpopulation problem if taken to a global scale.

 

[MIDutch]

In fact all of the problems brought on by science can be solved by studying and applying God's word.

Which God? There are so many of them.

 

[MIDutch]

Our focus should be on our problems here on earth.

Which SCIENCE is much better equipped to deal with than bronze age myths, fables and tall tales.

Although, I guess, a global flood that wipes out all life on Earth except for an incestuous family and a few wandering animals COULD be considered a "solution" to all of humanities problems.

 

[solid_core]

No, it did not. It gave evidence that the universe has expanded from a state of extreme density and temperature. That's all.

If you do not accept standard cosmological theory of our days, how can you want creationists to accept standard biological theory?

 

[solid_core]

There is no evidence that there was ever a time when there was nothing.

And who says there was nothing?

Also, is there evidence that there was always something?

 

[46AND2]

Which "this" logic?



Yes, definition of god (small g) is against logic. Because gods do not exist.

The fact that I choose not to use reverential capitalization is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

Defining one true God (capital G) is quite natural,

No it isn't. Indeed, it's why we call it supernatural.

logical and standard position in philosophy for 2,500 years.

Do you believe he is tri-omni? (omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient)

There's a whole lot of logic defying one has to accept within these attributes.