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.
Everything has a design and fits into the master plan. That is why no two snowflakes are alike. This is really more along the line of the Buddhist religion. Christianity does not get into this as much as they do.But a person can misinterpret something as having design that doesn't.
According to this article everything has some IQ. They talk about plastic having a "memory".If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?
Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?
Evolution is nonsense. I mean macro-evolution.
How could lower life forms evolve into more intelligent life forms ?
If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?
Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?
The operating system of a PC works because it was programmed to follow rules and instructions.
Who designed the rules and instructions in the DNA system ?
They evolved on the fly ?
Machines can function properly only if you provide sensible data, and won't do so otherwise.
Garbage in, garbage out. On the other hand, the human mind is different. It is intelligent enough to understand even if you provide a partial entry, or pronounce incorrectly, or mis-spelt words.
The human mind is more than a machine, it is something evolution cannot explain.
Everything has a design that is why no two snowflakes are alike.But a person can misinterpret something as having design that doesn't.
What is nonsense is to say that a car created itself and that there was no designer.Driving is nonsense. I mean driving for a thousand miles, not just down the streets.
2 snowflakes that are alike.Everything has a design and fits into the master plan. That is why no two snowflakes are alike. This is really more along the line of the Buddhist religion. Christianity does not get into this as much as they do.
What is nonsense is to say that a car created itself and that there was no designer.
Indeed,it appears everywhere you look.But we only have APPARENT design in nature.
Then how do you think it appears to be designed?In order to have design, there must be INTENTION, and nothing about nature happening demonstrates an intention, other than what WE give it.
Yes, a rock, but we're discussing living nature in particular.Is a rock intended to be a tool or a weapon or a paperweight?.. It depends on how WE intend to use it. It's of no use at all to say that it was "designed" to be whatever we want to use it for.
Indeed.Facts are facts.
Indeed,it appears everywhere you look.
A fine tuned universe and the genius of the phenomenon we call living nature.
Mankind still doesn't fathomit,although the scientific data keeps increasing.
Apparently it is designed and manufactured.
This is however unacceptable for naturalists, so they choose to limit their paradigm.
Then how do you think it appears to be designed?
Did we give intention to the liver? Or did we just discover the function and purpose?
Or any organ for that matter.
We discover the purpose, the purpose (i.e. what it is intended for) was already there.
So your point is invalid.
Yes, a rock, but we're discussing living nature in particular.
In the eco system many organism have a purpose in keeping it a functioning system.
Indeed.
And the fact is that there is no compelling evidence to support Darwin's 19th century conjecture.
To remind you once again, this thread is about evidence against evolution. So far you've posted that Mitochondrial Eve is evidence against evolution, which is simply wrong. Do you have any actual evidence or not?Indeed.
And the fact is that there is no compelling evidence to support Darwin's 19th century conjecture.
Everything has a design that is why no two snowflakes are alike.
It seems like it. From my perspective you are trying to avoid essential uncertainty.My friend we have reached an impasse of understanding I see.
Pushed to the limit, it is not.If Reason is uncertain and not sound, then neither is its product.
No absolute, eternal reference point. That's not quite the same thing.With no reference point, how can probability be established? How can something be closer to true or 'the best we have' if you have nothing to base what is best on?
As to 'ruling things out', heliocentrism was ruled out, then back in, then out again etc. This is no method to base derivitive theory of probability on.
A metaphysical approach devoid from physical observation is itself rather cut adrift.I am speaking metaphysically, so your examples are a bit superfluous.
Because the Antichrist is going to use it during the Tribulation period to get scientists to take the Mark.Could you explain, how scientists all agree, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger over the 150 years the theory has been around?
Blind.bhsmte said:Are they all just stupid?
Yes.bhsmte said:Do you know something all these scientists are just missing?
No comment.bhsmte said:Is it just a giant conspiracy, including thousands of scientists around the world?
I have no methodology for certainty or absolute values which does not imply some non-material Forms, Ideas or Monistic unity, which is one of the reasons I am a Protestant. I disagree with Naturalistic Materialism because of the innate uncertainty and no, 'foundation' points are not acceptable if we wish to approach what is 'true' in my opinion. I disagree with Bernstein's arguments of non-duality of answers and do not consider arbitrary human defined points as acceptable reference points of any value, nor human defined absolutes either. I value the idea of 'Truth' and probability and variance is unacceptable to me, hence I cannot ascribe to mindsets based on uncertainty and find then inherently flawed. (Not that I can be certain of anything I believe itself, but metaphysically I can at least say that truth exists)It seems like it. From my perspective you are trying to avoid essential uncertainty.
(Do you not have trouble with the quantum world?)
Possibly because you see it as far more traumatic and chaotic than it need be.
Pushed to the limit, it is not.
Under everyday circumstances it does rather well.
Rather like Newton's laws of motion in that respect.
No absolute, eternal reference point. That's not quite the same thing.
There are plenty of things that serve as foundation points.
Fun in physics at the moment is that two very successful building points don't seem to want to mesh together.
relativity and quantum mechanics. Where and what is quantum gravity?
But this is a long way from being totally lost or having no compass at all.
Yes, that's called progress. And it's messy. Almost inevitably with humans involved, and having a basis in observation and measurement, with limits on precision.
(I have the mind of an engineer so "right" is "within tolerance." "Exact" tends to get met with "how exact?"
It's everywhere but usually not consciously noticed. "2" is fuzzy round the edges, is nothing like as tidy and neat as it is commonly taken to be (which, commonly, is fine.) 1.51 or 2.49 might show up as 2 on scales or a spreadsheet. But accumulate them and odd things happen. Say by ten: 15.1 and 24.9 will show up as 15 and 25 on the same scales or spreadsheet. Take out the uncertainty first and it looks as though 10 x 2 = 20. Dead certain and precise. Or not.
Reality rules.
A metaphysical approach devoid from physical observation is itself rather cut adrift.
Absolutes are easy enough to assert by fiat. It's actually quite popular, though that comes without an absolute consensus, to put it mildly, as to what the absolutes should be, or the authority behind them.
Certainty is elusive here too.
Do you have a proposed methodology for certainty and absolute? I've never found one free from uncertainty.
Though I've looked in a good few places in the past.
-_- surely you recognize that not all individuals within a species are equally intelligent. And, intellect has a demonstrable genetic component. Thus, if the more intelligent beings within a species consistently have the most reproductive success, each new generation will contribute towards a trend of higher intelligence. The reason why there aren't any species that match us in intellect is due to the fact that our ancestors pushed any candidate species into extinction, and we now take up that whole niche in the food chain. Also, IQ is a measurement specifically for humans, so technically applying it to any other species is using it wrong. It's also a fluid number; 100 is the average IQ of people in your age group, and the standards that met that when IQ tests were first being used were notably lower than they are today. In summary, the average person today is more academically adept than people from more than 70 years ago. Most people attribute that to better education rather than any genetic change, though.Evolution is nonsense. I mean macro-evolution.
How could lower life forms evolve into more intelligent life forms ?
If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?
Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?
The operating system of a PC works because it was programmed to follow rules and instructions.
Who designed the rules and instructions in the DNA system ? They evolved on the fly ?
Machines can function properly only if you provide sensible data, and won't do so otherwise. And if
you enter a partial entry, it won't understand you and hence won't give you the answer.
Garbage in, garbage out. On the other hand, the human mind is different. It is intelligent enough to
understand even if you provide a partial entry, or pronounce incorrectly, or mis-spelt words.
The human mind is more than a machine, it is something evolution cannot explain.
The design follow the form or the structure. Why do animals have spots or stripes, because each hair is a different color and the patter follows the way the DNA works to give each hair a different color or pigment. In some animals there can be up to 40 different colors. But the pattern follows the way the DNA colors each one a different color.Snowflakes aren't designed. They are formed naturally and it is well understood how this process works.
It happens when a tiny dust or pollen particle comes into contact with water vapor and freezes into a tiny crystal of ice.
Not in American where they are built by robots. Machines that build machines. The machines just grind up the humans and spit them out, at least according to charlie chapman.Furthermore, you can go visit car factories where they are produced by humans.
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?