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 14 of 15
give me something we can observe in nature, and not under a microscope
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Right- I'm presupposing that s**t can be explained, you're presupposing that it can't.
Originally posted by antimason:
we are both presupposing a premise
Who's more limited here?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uhhh, stuff under microscopes comes from nature sometimes, yanno.
Originally posted by antimason:
give me something we can observe in nature, and not under a microscope
Okay, look, the intermedearies are FEW, get it? A changeover mutation is disinclined to turn back on itself. Once a mutation makes an extra-species jump, IT'S A NEW SPECIES!!!
Problem is that you're sort of asking for a car that was the first hybrid, but just a little bit hybrid, so you can see the hybrid car evolution.
Silly.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
chrisisall- Uhhh, stuff under microscopes comes from nature sometimes, yanno.
i do. but claiming for example that mammals and reptiles had a common ancestry, i think that requires a bit more evidence
Quote:
Okay, look, the intermedearies are FEW, get it? A changeover mutation is disinclined to turn back on itself. Once a mutation makes an extra-species jump, IT'S A NEW SPECIES!!!
hey, at least in theory right? sounds good on paper.
its like the fruit fly argument.. theyve done more tests on it then any other organism, trying to create a positive mutation that led to new genetic material. what did we learn? in the end, theyre still flys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Right- I'm presupposing that s**t can be explained, you're presupposing that it can't.
Who's more limited here?
no.. im presupposing things can be explained through intelligent causation, where as youre asserting a random, unintelligent cause
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
However, we can also assert 'intelligent causation', as I did above, which does not in fact contradict the evolutionary theories as mentioned in this thread. My assertion above is along those lines.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now, please don't take this as an attack. You were able to answer my questions, and that's actually more thought than I've seen some people - on either side of the argument - give this debate.
There are a few things that factually I would disagree with you on.
Quote:
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
Certain life forms on earth are known to be able to survive temperatures up to 251 degrees Fahrenheit and down to 32 degrees Fahrenheit (boundary when ice melts and water freezes). Furthermore, we have evidence of temperatures on earth varying wildly in the past, as well as chemical composition of the atmosphere and in the ol' primordial soup. It's believed that photosynthesizing organisms helped turn our early CO2 and hydrocarbon-rich atmosphere into the current 70% Nitrogen 20% Oxygen, 10% everything else.
I am one of those people who believe that we will find lifeforms on other planets, because I believe the conditions to form life are not as strict as previously believed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formations
Quote:
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.
Well, what evolution says happened is that single celled organisms began to form multi-celled colonies. The organisms were still separate at that time, but they were able to work together for their mutual survival.
Here is a similar, modern day example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvox
Notice the mention of flagella, that is, little protein "tails" on an individual cell that beat and allow movement of the colony as a whole, or which can be used to produce water currents.
Looking at the very most primitive animal, the sponge, what we see is really basically two layers of cells working together with their flagella to produce a water current to filter feed from.
The two layers of the sponge become important through-out all animals, because it is believed they are homologous with the ectoderm and endoderm in embryonic development. Later on, due to folding during embryonic development, some animals developed a third layer of cells called the mesoderm, which allowed those animals to be able to have a body cavity space (like us!) for certain organs.
Furthermore, the larva of a sponge is VERY similar to a multi-cellular colony of flagellated cells, before it settles on a stationary surface and begins to develop.
This in turn is similar to the larva of the cnidarian, such as the hydra. Cnidarians have differentiated cells, such as cells adapted to digesting food, stalk cells to cement the cnidarian to a rock surface, photosensitive cells, cnidaria (needle) cells on tentacles that deliver toxin to incapacitate food, and a nerve net that can control contraction of the tentacles.
I could try to explain how the cells may have started to become differentiated. But first I'd have to consult my books to refresh my memory, and second, I'm about to eat dinner.
Happy fourth of July!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, look - I think I found your "intelligent designer":
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti,
I've got a question for you. Who designed your "designer"? After all, you're arguing that all of this is too complicated to have just happened, so it must have been "designed". But surely anything capable of designing such a complicated universe, and all the vastly complicated things IN that universe, would have necessarily have been a VERY complex design, in and of him/her/itself. Such a designer couldn't have just sprung into existence - it would have had to have been designed, yes? So who designed your god? And who designed his designer?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
i do. but claiming for example that mammals and reptiles had a common ancestry, i think that requires a bit more evidence
I agree. That's why I keep asking you for actual verifiable scientific evidence of your so-called "designer". Or your "common ancestor", as it were. After all, if one supernatural being designed everything, then aren't you admitting that mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME