What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

I have a difficult time with macro-evolution because of what I hear about cells in our body. I don't understand how eyes evolved. Were all animals blind before full evolution? Did vision take millions of years? How did animals find food before the eye was fully developed?

Lots of living things today don't have eyes. They don't seem to have an issue finding food.

How long does it take for a fish to develop lungs that could use air? Did the first fish come out of the water and just die? Why would they have even developed lungs if they didn't need them to live in water?

Organs can be multi-functional. In the case of lungs, it appears they evolved from swim bladders.

There are multiple ways of absorbing oxygen. Some fish primarily use gills. Some fish use only the swim bladder. Some fish can do both.

You can read about this sort of thing with respect to Lungfish: Lungfish - Wikipedia

They give a clue how the early transition in the development of the ability to breath out of water could have looked like.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Evolution is about explaining the diversity of life, not its origin. That is a different field, called 'abiogenesis'.

You're right of course.
But some scientists can't believe in evolution because they don't believe it's so easy for life to begin....this is the same belief that causes them not to believe in evolution.

I can't speak for all atheists, but for me, there is an important distinction - I try to make provisional judgements on the available evidence rather than believing faith-based dogma.

Sure. There can be no imperial evidence for faith-based dogma. This is why it's called faith.

In my view, it's an entirely reasonable question - the intelligent programming of DNA is clearly possible - we have reached that capability ourselves. So it's possible that our DNA may have been modified by a non-human intelligence with a more advanced capability, although, comparing our DNA with the most similar non-human DNA, there is no evidence of that.

I don't understand how you could say this....
how could our comparing our DNA to the closest non-human be any "proof" that aliens could NOT have done this?

Of course, the question of where the aliens originated would still remain....

But if this was the case, I would put the likelihood of it having been done by alien visitors to Earth, though extremely remote, as far greater than that of some supernatural entity being involved - for reasons I'm happy to explain if you wish (if you haven't seen my previous posts on the God hypothesis).

I would be happy to hear of the God hypothesis, or if you want to give me post numbers.

We have a problem in any case:
Who created God?
How does something come from nothing?

Both big problems.

In every field of science there are some individuals that reject the consensus or the orthodoxy, and this is generally a good thing - if they have valid scientific reasons for doing so. However, incredulity and/or a conflicting belief system are not valid scientific reasons. I'm wondering how many of the scientists you say reject it have valid scientific reasons for doing so.

'More study' has been done, for over 160 years, and whole new fields of science have contributed to our knowledge of it - and every new discovery has refined our understanding and reinforced the theory. There are now multiple independent lines of evidence for it and literally millions of pieces of information supporting it; we even use evolutionary principles ourselves to generate novel designs for technical and commercial applications - we know it's an explanation that works, and all the evidence is consistent with it.

Can we imagine intelligent aliens or supernatural entities contributing to our evolution somehow? Obviously we can - but there is an infinite number of things we can imagine being involved, some more plausible than others, but - lack of evidence apart - none of which are necessary.

Do you not think it's relevant whether or not they have valid scientific reasons for rejecting it?

To me, a non-scientific person, it does seem like they have good reasons. I'm talking about Behe, Meyer, Tour. A well-known scientist, can't remember the name or his specialty, became a believer in God because he believed there was no other explanation for any of this --- what we see and what we don't see.

So, yes, I do think it's relevant..I could say I just can't believe it --- but a scientist has to have a reason.

 

[GodsGrace101]

All of which have convincing, evidence-based answers, if you actually wished to study the subject.


Science can only invalidate a literal reading of the Bible. Nothing that science has discovered nor in principle could discover in future can deny the existence of God.

The existence of God could be rejected if we learned how the universe started,,,how life began,,,and how it changed (sorry but I still say not all agree).

I'd say that would be proof for a denial of ID.

P.S. There's no way I could understand what you'd have to explain.
It just doesn't seem logical or reasonable to me.

If you could explain about the eye in simple terms it would be very interesting.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Lots of living things today don't have eyes. They don't seem to have an issue finding food.



Organs can be multi-functional. In the case of lungs, it appears they evolved from swim bladders.

There are multiple ways of absorbing oxygen. Some fish primarily use gills. Some fish use only the swim bladder. Some fish can do both.

You can read about this sort of thing with respect to Lungfish: Lungfish - Wikipedia

They give a clue how the early transition in the development of the ability to breath out of water could have looked like.

I know that there are some animals that could live in water and out of water...but they don't seem to become land animals, but stay as they are.

As to eyes,,,sure, there are fish that have no eyes because they live deep in the ocean and have no use for them. But GETTING eyes is different than not needing them.

 

[Speedwell]

The existence of God could be rejected if we learned how the universe started,,,how life began,,,and how it changed (sorry but I still say not all agree).

You can reject the existence of God any time you like. But the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. It cannot be disproven by science no matter what is discovered about the origin of universe or of life.

I'd say that would be proof for a denial of ID.

ID is a crock, anyway. No self-respecting Christian should have anything to do with it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You can reject the existence of God any time you like. But the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. It cannot be disproven by science no matter what is discovered about the origin of universe or of life.

ID is a crock, anyway. No self-respecting Christian should have anything to do with it.

Maybe it's just a more palatable way of saying GOD?


When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea.

Richard Dawkins

source: Richard Dawkins Quotes About Intelligent Design | A-Z Quotes

 

[Tinker Grey]

Maybe it's just a more palatable way of saying GOD?


When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea.

Richard Dawkins

source: Richard Dawkins Quotes About Intelligent Design | A-Z Quotes

Here's the rest of that quote:

Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.​

God vs. Science

 

[GodsGrace101]

Here's the rest of that quote:

Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.​

God vs. Science

For sure....God IS a lot grandeur than we could ever imagine.

It's always entertaining how Christians post and say such opposite teachings of God...can we really know Hm at all? I think not.

Of course any God that can create a universe will have to be a very big God.

I agree with Dawkins.

 

[Tinker Grey]

For sure....God IS a lot grandeur than we could ever imagine.

It's always entertaining how Christians post and say such opposite teachings of God...can we really know Hm at all? I think not.

Of course any God that can create a universe will have to be a very big God.

I agree with Dawkins.

That the idea of Jesus coming down and dying on the cross is parochial? Not worthy of the grandeur of the universe?

 

[GodsGrace101]

That the idea of Jesus coming down and dying on the cross is parochial? Not worthy of the grandeur of the universe?

Paul took everything he knew about the Jewish religion and put it all together in the book of Romans.

Jesus died. It was a shameful death.
He said He was the Messiah.
How to justify this?
Exodus,,,the perfect Lamb.
God's perfect lamb.
In the O.T. if one disobeyed many of the laws given to Moses the verdict was death for not following the Law.
Jesus followed the law perfectly,,,but He died for us because we are not able to.

Is this all good?
Or was Jesus a light sent from God, as God has sent many lights. We know Jesus because we live in the West...maybe if we lived somewhere else we would believe in Krishna...God is God. We need to get to Him....He has always revealed Himself.
Romans 1:19-20
How is not important,,,but it's important that we get to Him...Jesus said we must be born from above.
Our spirit must be one with God's spirit.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Paul took everything he knew about the Jewish religion and put it all together in the book of Romans.

Jesus died. It was a shameful death.
He said He was the Messiah.
How to justify this?
Exodus,,,the perfect Lamb.
God's perfect lamb.
In the O.T. if one disobeyed many of the laws given to Moses the verdict was death for not following the Law.
Jesus followed the law perfectly,,,but He died for us because we are not able to.

Is this all good?
Or was Jesus a light sent from God, as God has sent many lights. We know Jesus because we live in the West...maybe if we lived somewhere else we would believe in Krishna...God is God. We need to get to Him....He has always revealed Himself.
Romans 1:19-20
How is not important,,,but it's important that we get to Him...Jesus said we must be born from above.
Our spirit must be one with God's spirit.

I understand what you've written. What I don't understand is why you didn't just answer my question. I take it that your answer is "no, I don't agree." Instead. You post a wall of text that only obliquely touches on the question.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I understand what you've written. What I don't understand is why you didn't just answer my question. I take it that your answer is "no, I don't agree." Instead. You post a wall of text that only obliquely touches on the question.

Either you've said the above to me another time...or this is a big dejavu.

How does your question get answered in one word?
Perhaps I've said too much......
Perhaps I haven't said enough....

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe it's just a more palatable way of saying GOD?


When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea.

Richard Dawkins

source: Richard Dawkins Quotes About Intelligent Design | A-Z Quotes

But calling God a "supernatural intelligent designer" is not the same as ID, the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute. It is merely a gratuitous addition to the Names of God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Either you've said the above to me another time...or this is a big dejavu.

I honestly don't recall.

How does your question get answered in one word?
Perhaps I've said too much......
Perhaps I haven't said enough....

Well, I provided 4: "No, I don't agree".

You get, right, that we all understand that Christians would not agree? You could have said no and then elaborated. Instead you posted without directly answering the question leaving the actual answer "no" to be inferred. I find this frustrating; it's seems like a tactic to avoid getting pinned to an answer: "I never actually said 'no'." I am NOT saying that this is your intention, but you should consider this for future responses.

So why did I ask the question? Your original quote omitted text that clarified Dawkins' meaning: A powerful entity or entities is an interesting idea, BUT if such a thing were to exist, it would almost certainly NOT be among the gods that humans currently worship.

This is called quote-mining. Your source took some words out of context to misrepresent what Dawkins' said. This is dishonest.

I asked the question to highlight that you were ignoring what was in plain view: Dawkins considers your idea of god ridiculous -- like your source did.

I don't wish this to come across as accusatory; I want to be food for thought for your future posts.

 

[GodsGrace101]

But calling God a "supernatural intelligent designer" is not the same as ID, the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute. It is merely a gratuitous addition to the Names of God.

I don't know this for sure, but it sounds plausible.
I'm not sure they're all Christian...they probably are.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I honestly don't recall.


Well, I provided 4: "No, I don't agree".

You get, right, that we all understand that Christians would not agree? You could have said no and then elaborated. Instead you posted without directly answering the question leaving the actual answer "no" to be inferred. I find this frustrating; it's seems like a tactic to avoid getting pinned to an answer: "I never actually said 'no'." I am NOT saying that this is your intention, but you should consider this for future responses.

So why did I ask the question? Your original quote omitted text that clarified Dawkins' meaning: A powerful entity or entities is an interesting idea, BUT if such a thing were to exist, it would almost certainly NOT be among the gods that humans currently worship.

This is called quote-mining. Your source took some words out of context to misrepresent what Dawkins' said. This is dishonest.

I asked the question to highlight that you were ignoring what was in plain view: Dawkins considers your idea of god ridiculous -- like your source did.

I don't wish this to come across as accusatory; I want to be food for thought for your future posts.

You and I have posted before and I always answer a direct question with a direct answer.

I do this habitually and don't need to think about it for the future.

Maybe I missed your question?

I mean,,,maybe our idea of God IS rediculous.
This is what I was saying.
We can only know about God what He has revealed to us. And the ultimate revelation, in my opinion, is Jesus.

I find that persons tend to make God smaller than He is.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know this for sure, but it sounds plausible.

It does, until you look into it and find that it is politically-motivated pseudoscience.

I'm not sure they're all Christian...they probably are.

They're all Calvinists. Read their manifesto, The Institutes of Biblical Law by the late R.J. Rushdooney.

 

[GodsGrace101]

It does, until you look into it and find that it is politically-motivated pseudoscience.
They're all Calvinists. Read their manifesto, The Institutes of Biblical Law by the late R.J. Rushdooney.

I hope it's online...can't get books here written in English.
But tomorrow...past midnight.

But, you know, I don't really go by what anybody says.
I don't particularly follow any person in the Discovery Institute...I listen to it and some of what they say sounds right.

We need to do our own thinking,,,parroting what someone else thinks or says just doesn't work.
'night.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You and I have posted before and I always answer a direct question with a direct answer.

I do this habitually and don't need to think about it for the future.

I don't mean to imply you are dishonest. But I do find your post not direct.

I mean,,,maybe our idea of God IS rediculous.
This is what I was saying.
We can only know about God what He has revealed to us. And the ultimate revelation, in my opinion, is Jesus.

SEE! THIS is a direct answer: "May our idea of God IS ridiculous". And I didn't get that as the point of your post at all.

I find that persons tend to make God smaller than He is.

I agree. You might find this quote from Sagan interesting:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
​

From this book: https://www.amazon.com/Pale-Blue-Dot-Vision-Future/dp/0345376595
Here's where I quote from: Quote by Carl Sagan: “How is it that hardly any major religion has lo...”

 

[Speedwell]

I hope it's online...can't get books here written in English.
But tomorrow...past midnight.

No rush--it's 890 pages and heavy reading, a plan to replace the US gov't with a Christian theocracy.

But, you know, I don't really go by what anybody says.
I don't particularly follow any person in the Discovery Institute...I listen to it and some of what they say sounds right.

Be careful. No hard feelings, but you really don't know very much about the theory of evolution, and the Discovery Institute is notorious for misrepresenting it.

[