Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 17:49
VIEWED: 9477
PAGE 13 of 15
I'm reposting my request for antimason.
Quote:
You didn't answer really answer any of my questions. You claim an intelligent designer without presenting a theory that counters evolution on it's key points. We know you believe there's an intelligent designer. But evolutionists don't answer every question with "because there's evolution."
Why do you think there are similarities? In other words, why would an intelligent designer make those similarities? And how and why would the intelligent designer make the archetype lifeforms?
Evolution explains hows and whys. So explain your hows and whys. You don't have to have address EVERY point evolution makes or counter EVERY bit of evidence in evolution's favour, but for goodness sakes, if you're going to present this as a counter theory to evolution, give us something more than "because it is how it is and that's how the creator made it."
And use logos, not pathos or ethos. When you begin talking about how amazing the universe is and how there is no possible way it formed on it's own, that's philosophy, not science.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Bytemite-
Why do you think there are similarities?
this is going to come off as an over-simplification, but this is what i believe:
because of the conditions present on earth. that we are fortunate to even exist is a miracle. so many variables had to align to create an environment capable of sustaining life. you are likely more aware then i, but if our orbit/rotation/tilt/atmospheric composition were skewed just a little, life likely would not exist at all. you may as well be asking me how/why we're even here
but what i believe is just as God took from the dust of the earth, and breathed life into it, to create Man, he did so with the different animal varieties. its not very 'scientific', but IMO neither is the concept of non-living matter spawning all life forms in existence.
i know you will say, there are similarities because they share a common ancestor, but then to me, that still doesnt explain how a lung or a brain developed from a single celled organism.
Quote:
In other words, why would an intelligent designer make those similarities? And how and why would the intelligent designer make the archetype lifeforms?
again, ill be accused of over-simplifying, but because they were good designs. the assumption is that purely un-directed processes are capable of resulting in complex biological functions. in my estimation, this generally should be mathamatically impossible, not just improbable. for example even a basic cell is incredibly complex, but it requires millions of functions to act in unison. its hard for me to assume that these processes, dependant on complete symbiosis, were able to form the right formula, strictly through time and chance. in my mind, its more likely they were designed that way
Quote:
Evolution explains hows and whys. So explain your hows and whys.
in my mind, evolution is a description of a process which occurs only after the basic information has been encoded into the DNA... as in the varieties of dogs. but it doesnt explain where the genetic codes came from. theres still no consensus how life originated to begin with; we rely entirely on mathematical chance. beginning with inanimate matter, natural selection or mutation cant explain how the first amino acids formed proteins, to form a cell, to create a living organism. its a guided process, thats hard to believe occurred randomly
Quote:
if you're going to present this as a counter theory to evolution, give us something more than "because it is how it is and that's how the creator made it."
im sorry, its a basic observation, things appear uniquely designed to function effectively. i think Solomon said it best
" He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end " Eccl 3:11
Quote:
When you begin talking about how amazing the universe is and how there is no possible way it formed on it's own, that's philosophy, not science.
believe me friend, there is plenty of philosophy in the speculation of the origins of life. if you are strictly looking for a material causation, you will limit yourself to only those possibilities that exist within that realm of thought. but take a look around some time, at the varieties of plants and trees and animals, the earth cycles, or even yourself in a mirror.. and just consider that this didnt happen by accident
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No I will not, my friend, because of things like THIS:
Originally posted by antimason:
believe me friend, there is plenty of philosophy in the speculation of the origins of life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510276/Scientists-create-artif
icial-life-laboratory--bottles-chemicals.html
Quote:
The scientists took the natural bacterium and painstakingly replaced its genetic structure, or genome, with DNA stitched together from chemicals. Eventually they had recreated all the genes that had been in the natural bacterium, effectively turning it into an identical but artificial organism.
Other experiments are going as I type this.
Rating of your intellectual performance on this thread so far: FAIL.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Other experiments are going as I type this.
Rating of your intellectual performance on this thread so far: FAIL.
lol.. am i the only one who caught that? you know it still took SCIENTISTS, with their INTELLIGENCE< to recreate those conditions.. its not gonna happen randomly. im just sayin...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
also, going from a living cell, to even say a trilobyte, is a great leap.. its not just as easy as getting the ball rolling, and then just sitting back(over billions of years..) and letting it take off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What- an allergy to scientific reason? No, many have that.
Originally posted by antimason:
lol.. am i the only one who caught that?
Quote:Yeah, well, realistically, scientists have to take some shortcuts since their lifespans aren't up to a million-year experiment, I grant you.
you know it still took SCIENTISTS, with their INTELLIGENCE< to recreate those conditions.. its not gonna happen randomly. im just sayin...
On a more serious note, dude, ya gotta stop with the grand statements "not gonna happen...impossible...has to have a creator..."
Remember, these are opinions, based on facts like me & Mike, or philosophy like you, but neither are absolutes, okay?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but what i believe is just as God took from the dust of the earth, and breathed life into it, to create Man, he did so with the different animal varieties. its not very 'scientific', but IMO neither is the concept of non-living matter spawning all life forms in existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Chrisisall- On a more serious note, dude, ya gotta stop with the grand statements "not gonna happen...impossible...has to have a creator..."
Remember, these are opinions
uh huh... its an opinion when i make a statement, because i believe in supernatural causation. but when you presuppose a natural causation, how is that any different? we are both presupposing a premise
this is why this debate will never be settled, because your side has determined the framework, anything outside of which cannot be considered 'factual'. if you will only accept a natural material cause to everything, then how can i persuade you to accept anything otherwise? now you will tell me 'its because we dont need one'.. which i would respond, that sure sounds like a grand statement to me
Quote:
based on facts like me & Mike, or philosophy like you, but neither are absolutes, okay?
my point exactly. your example still required a creator, to initiate life.. yet, that logic doesnt apply to the intitial hypothesis(of how life originated to begin with)?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
"Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species. "
if this is true, then where are the intermediates? forget the fossils, where are the living examples? everything still falls into the catagories of invertebrates and vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They're all over- just look at viruses to see them in living action!
Originally posted by antimason:
if this is true, then where are the intermediates? forget the fossils, where are the living examples?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME