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.
You are forgetting The Fall and The Curse.consideringlily said:ID can't explain the gall bladder as well as evolution can. I recently had mine removed after 6 years of agonizing flare ups. The surgery is the most commonly performed in the U.S.
.......
Why is faulty design present?
But what aboutSplit Rock said:You are forgetting The Fall and The Curse.
We are living in a Fallen Creation, therefore any and all poor designs are explained away as being "degenerated" by The Curse.
Just don't ask exactly how The Curse works, because The Laws of Physics were different back then (at least according to Dadology).
Hope that helps!
Split Rock said:You are forgetting The Fall and The Curse.
We are living in a Fallen Creation, therefore any and all poor designs are explained away as being "degenerated" by The Curse.
Just don't ask exactly how The Curse works, because The Laws of Physics were different back then (at least according to Dadology).
Hope that helps!
MemeBuster said:If evolution is true how come if a person has tattoos his children don't have the same tattoos?
MemeBuster said:If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around?
MemeBuster said:Evolution can not explain how something as complex as human eye came to be.
MemeBuster said:And oh yeah, evolution can't explain love.
O RLY?shinbits said:ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.
thatwouldbeyou said:ID shows a designer with a mindset to keep things different.
I didn't make up those questions, I have seen creationists ask those questions on DBs before.urbanxy said:You are not seriously asking this question, are you?
[duh] Oops, I missed your point. [/duh]MemeBuster said:I didn't make up those questions, I have seen creationists ask those questions on DBs before.
This thread is a farce, people with half-baked understanding of the ToE offering the same old tired strawman arguments.
I'm just having some fun and being thankful that we do live in a time that church is not powreful enough to pursecute and burn scientists alive at the stake to protect its dogma.
Theory of Evilution is here to stay. Sure, it will be modified, revised, and extended, but it will never be replaced with YEC or ID.
Ignorance may slow down the progress of science but I don't think it will overtake again. Human race has grown up a bit and now it is a little bit more immune to being slaved to religious ignorance.
If you are a YECist or an IDist, well, ...., I'll pary for you!
MB.
Technically, IDers have to pretend that they don't know that the reason is The Curse, because they have to pretend not to be Creationists.consideringlily said:I was hoping to get a novel answer from an IDer besides The Fall. (I hate that answer, it pretends to explain but at the same time it explains nada)
Now you've gone and blown it.
Indeed
shinbits said:The other thread I started kept drifting off topic, even though it was a nice friendly one (certain evolutionists will remain nameless who just have to bash ID or creation, even when the thread is a friendly and neutral one)
But anyway................
This'll be a fun thread.
Here are the rules, and I ask everyone to abide by them:
If you're an evo supporter, post something you think ID can't explain; but also post if you think evolution can explain it. If it can, show how.
If you're an ID supporter, post something you think evolution can't explain; but also post if you think ID can explain it. If it can, show how.
Okay?
To answer a question on a different thread:
An octopus has better wiring for sight than most mammels, because it's harder to see under water then on land. So it's design reflects need for better wiring.
Tomk80 said:The problem with ID is that it can explain anything. If all wings would have the same design? Than it's because they have a common designer. But they don't have the same design. Well, that can be explained just as easily. I mean, the designer is a creative designer, so he could easily make different designs. This is why ID explains nothing. Because it just ad-hocs it's way into explaining whatever you want.
Not for evolution. If wings would show a common design (for birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles (pterodactyles), it would be hard to explain for evolution, because they come from different lineages. The differences in design between wings are caused because of the wings developing at a later point, after the lineages already split.
You see, no matter how wings would look, ID could explain it. But evolution can only explain certain patterns in how wings would look, but could not explain certain others. That makes evolution falsifiable (and thus science), while it makes ID useless.
Does evolution say they came linearly progressive and changing? How?MQTA said:Well, the information I read supposed comes from the creators themselves. They say they when they created the birds, they had their artists join the scientists. There's 7 different races of them, and they had contests to who could be the most creative in color and design, when they did the birds. As evolution says they came linearly progressive and changing. They say they're just different versions. They also had to create the ecosystem and food chain with each sect... under water, in the air, on the ground, etc.
Then why do we observe speciation? How is speciation not 'another species ... come popping out'.They say we have the wrong idea about interspecies evolution. Natural selection is within genetically compatible species... another species doesn't come popping out.
How is ID 'pure' science, if it is not constructed from observation? That's what science is supposed to do, isn't it. Observe, and then draw conclusions from the observations.They say ID is PURE science, and evolution was contstructed from observation of back tracking. This is a real monkey wrench in what I thought had most merit, too, but since reading the 5 book ebook, I can't make it not make any sense. Before reading it, same reaction as you. But now... it seems clearer.
From what you write, I can't really say I'm in any way convinced. I think it's just as shoddy as all other forms of ID and creationism I've seen as of yet.I don't know... headspinner and MMF, for sure.
I always thought it was really inconsequential.. but of that, now, I'm not so sure, either. I got some more reading to do... but this is what I gleaned so far. All while CF was being upgrade. LOL
Of course it can. That's where God uses evolution to create, as opposed to the times the God didn't use evolution to create.ThePenguinMafia said:I'm pretty sure evolution can't explain quantum physics.
Just a hunch, but you know.
Oh, and ID can't explain the observational fact of evolution. Sorry guys.
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?