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.
They have a lot of stories of how things may have evolved
they don't actually know how a brain with the whole body evolved, this i can say for sure. DNA is similar to all animals, and there is design choices similar in nature, and etc, i get it, but i don't buy an amoeba can evolve into a human with random changes being accepted by natural selection, less knowing God, and that we have a soul inside.
Yes .. there is abundant evidence for humans producing meanings (particularly from images).I see you mean the picture,
...
this doesn't mean ...
For me a creationist is someone that believes God had in mind what persons will become and made it happen, is a 'creation' of his... i don't believe he would put a soul in a body he didn't created in one way or another, also this means we were designed our souls are designed and souls have specific things that work with the body, so thinking we were a design from God being a christian and having met God and his Holy spirit, even the 'craziests' parts of the bible are not so incredible anymore, do i have my doubts in what to think, sure, i prefer to think the world is old, but i am not a product of lucky changes.
(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)
I think this is because the ID project was always more about tearing down "Darwinism" and Darwin so that other things (though not science) could more easily move in.
Like i said, those parts are not "unique", they are not interacting towards working towards some functionality, like a computer, or an *human eye* or a car.
This is not a debunked argument, this works, the eye has unique parts designed to work towards providing vision, the computer the same with a different functionality, and the car the same, you can make excuses, but STOP, think about it well, and you can detect design in cars computer planes , and biological organisms too.
Other than Stephen Meyer's Dissent From Darwinism and Behe's Darwin Devolves* being published in the past few years, I haven't heard much from the ID camp these days.
What exactly are they up to these days? Any ID breakthroughs to talk about? Any new or exciting things coming out of the ID camp?
Have they figured out how to detect design in biological organisms yet?
(* On a side note, I find it interesting that Darwin is referenced in the titles of their books. I've always found it odd that those in the creationism/ID camps continue to fixate on Darwin.)
Darwin? He (and others) had the original insight on which the theory is based and he is still respected for it, but science passed him by a long time ago. Calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" is an affection, rather like calling modern physics "Newtonism."I for one am happy to see agnostics tossing Darwin under the bus.
I for one am happy to see agnostics tossing Darwin under the bus.
I for one am happy to see agnostics tossing Darwin under the bus.
absolutely not. I would agree that parts are more than functionally interrelated, but then you go on to say that evolved separately. You can't do that, as the structure falls apart on every level. How could any development in eye be functional without corresponding changes in brain to make it useful? Yet we see almost every form of eye in the earliest fossil records, many of which are just as complex and require brain/structure interaction.Since that is not how biological components are assembled, hacking them to pieces like that doesn't demonstrate anything except that the components are functionally interrelated. Biological structures evolve their components gradually in situ and the functionality evolves along with them. In order to "disassemble" a biological structure you have to back it down the presumed evolutionary pathway, step by step.
But Pitabread asked, what is new with ID? Yours is an old and long-debunked argument.
In other words, you don't understand how related traits co-evolve (although it is not a mystery to evolutionary biologists) and you don't want to find out because you would rather deny it.absolutely not. I would agree that parts are more than functionally interrelated, but then you go on to say that evolved separately. You can't do that, as the structure falls apart on every level. How could any development in eye be functional without corresponding changes in brain to make it useful? Yet we see almost every form of eye in the earliest fossil records, many of which are just as complex and require brain/structure interaction.
We, as humans, are holistically designed. A vast number of our functions are commanded by interdependent organs releasing hormones that produce rapid responses....reactions to glucose, CO2 levels in blood for example by liver, pancreas, lungs, brain, kidneys....all to form homeostasis. How did these complex relationships evolve? Darwin thought some of these were vestigial organs, totally debunked idea now, although you evolutionists still strive to promote that myth. Who needs a thryoid? There is no organ left without function and left with just minor tissues. A fold or muscles in ear...or the bump in eye, which is where tear ducts flow out of and incredibly useful to get things out of eye.
Then we could on to talk about ecology that dependent systems need a bare minimum of service providers to survive, so by evolution, they had to evolve at once with minimum number of providers...aka things like pollinators and flowers, fungus and plant roots in soil, gut bioemes and vertebrates. One can't survive without the other, but there are multiple overlapping providers in any ecosystem, take a minimum away and can't survive. So a large number must have been present in any ecosystem instantly or in very very short period of maybe days. Yeah every try to grow plants? Most die, because necessary providers are not present in soil or environment.
In other words, you don't understand how related traits co-evolve (although it is not a mystery to evolutionary biologists) and you don't want to find out because you would rather deny it.
The short answer is that the selective environment which acts on a trait is not just the environment external to the creature but includes related evolving traits within the creature.sure, post me a link on how step by step evolution somehow also formed codependent traits in multiple organs. Would love to hear that.
The short answer is that the selective environment which acts on a trait is not just the environment external to the creature but includes related evolving traits within the creature.
your razor would say, NOPE someone created that stuff no?The short answer is that the selective environment which acts on a trait is not just the environment external to the creature but includes related evolving traits within the creature.
Reminds me of a thread I once made where I pointed out that so many creationists focus on attacking Darwin, somehow thinking that will invalidate the ToE, and compared it to attacking Christopher Columbus and thinking that will somehow invalidate the existence of the Americas.
No, when you have to add new types of existence, new types of interaction, new types of evidence... then no, it is not a simpler solution.your razor would say, NOPE someone created that stuff no?
Mutation creates variation... differential survival rates creates selection.appealing to blind faith evolution as assumed fact -- regardless of having no science demonstrating the mechanism
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?