you see, that's the disadvantage against an intelligent designer.......she doesn't need millions of years of errors......Originally Posted by Missileman
Senior Member
you see, that's the disadvantage against an intelligent designer.......she doesn't need millions of years of errors......
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
Apparently he need just one try to fuck up. Humans are a mess. I want a new design!
Copacetic
Tsk Tsk. Gotta see it through. Burnt steak makes for killer nachos!
Senior Member
perhaps you are a mess.....the rest of us have been getting along just fine for many generations......
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
then you haven't read anything about history or visited a hospice or questioned why we have unused DNA, unnecessary organs, push foul waste out next to our reproductive organs, why we have a tail bone, why our ears never stop growing, why i can't see shit in the dark, why my knees have arthritis. This is the best God could design? Not only bad physical design, but bad mental and emotional design. Read the news! We have the mental sophistication of cavemen. In my feeble mind I can come up with lots of improvements. Speaking of bad design. The Earth! Why did he create so much useless salt water, sandy desert and bone cold ice caps. We can only comfortable inhabit like 10% of the Earth. Nice design!
Senior Member
you may change something about human beings.....doing so will prove that you're smarter than God.....what would it be and how do you conclude that it will not have some impact upon us that will make things worse for us in the long run........
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
Protection from childhood leukemia (God gave a child malfunctioning bone marrow) would be a good start. Do you see a downside? Boom, I'm smarter than God.
Interesting development
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-sug...ar-life-1.9810
Senior Member
all cancers are the result of mutating cells.....if cells could not mutate how could evolution occur?.......if evolution could not occur you would still be an amoeba.......or, from our perspective, there might only be one color of butterfly......is the problem that cells mutate into cancer or is the problem that we haven't figured out yet how to repair that particular mutation......
when you consider all forms of life, how many cells are produced by the operation of DNA on an hourly basis......is it even possible to display such a large number on mere computer........out of all those cells what percentage are mutated (not even taking into consideration how many are brought to mutation through our contact with a polluted environment)......what percentage of those mutations are capable of reproducing themselves (cancer).......
before you can declare this one a win you have to convince me that simply waving your magic wand and eliminating cancer doesn't result in something worse, like an inability to adapt to a changing environment......
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
Obviously there is a difference between normal cell mutation and cancerous mutation. God shouldn't have designed cells that can't turn cancerous. His cell replication process is flawed.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/c...what-is-cancer
How can you adapt to a changing environment if you are dead? Cancer kills. Why treat malaria patients or immunize kids for polio. We could be robbing them of vital protection to a changing environment! no...
Senior Member
Pete - your last reply made a very strong case for evolution; you've finally evolved the ability to use 'mulit-quote' feature
WOOOHOOO!
[edit]
oh. nevermind. That was one reply you broke apart.I had such hope.
“… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.
Senior Member
do you realize you've just refuted Darwin?......
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
I'm going to weight in on this question and go baack to the coments to my earlier post later.
But this brings us to 2 separte sections of the God designed it agrument , from my POV.
on one side I can point out the designed aspects idea conforms better to what we see sceintically than evolution does.
I can say it scientifically ,without reference to any specific intelligence or God.
Now from here everyone leaps and Adds the Theological bits and says "HA YOU SAY your God is Perfect and Good, but look at all of these design problems , it should have been done better. IF your God is who he says he is.
OK fine but understand that's a very theological question at this point, which assume Perfection and goodness of the creator. Because the science doesn't as yet bear it out.
Ok now Biblically there is a clear answer. that is, that God did make the world perfect BUT there was a problem, he allowed some freedom that freedom was abused and the whole of creation was corrupted becuase of it. from the environment to the smallest living creator.
THAT's why the designs are no longer "perfect".
Short answer: God did make everything perfect but man fell and and God cursed man and the earth thus death and illness until he renews the whole show.
It's a theological answer that i can't scientifically prove BUT I think you can find some evidence for it you take the view that man and the universe is not evolving but devolving. That the law of entropy is as work in everything, moving us from the more prefect complexity to less.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Senior Member
the opening line from your link...
now, isn't that exactly what I have just said?....Cancer is a term used for diseases in which abnormal cells divide without control
I'm assuming you didn't mean to use a double negative and that he should NOT have designed cells that COULD turn cancerous.....God shouldn't have designed cells that can't turn cancerous. His cell replication process is flawed.
1) can you scientifically document that permitting abnormal cells do divide and result (in some very small percentage) in cancer is worse for humanity than not permitting abnormal cells to be able to divide?.....2) is it a flaw or is it the very reason we have not already become extinct........3) isn't it true that most cancers are caused by the impact upon our cellular structure from outside the body.....things such as smoking upon lungs, etc......are these the result of God's will and intended design or human conduct......
...full immersion.....
Senior Member
I don't get this , ANY pregnant or self replicating creature is MORE complex than a a man made helicopter, but you say random chance plus time plus natural selection (which began in an unknown way) is able to to produce a billion variations of the life more makes sense than a designer. It's not a Straw man it's sound comparison. based on the fact that you MUST have information to create a self replicating life form and you don't get information by random chance. period. evolution doesn't answer HOW you get the NEW information. And Frankly people are working on self replicating machines so you may get your wish but it will be becuase someone designed it that way.
Who said anything about not trusting the scientific process? I'm saying that the scientific process doesn't PROVE the evolution of all of the major variations in biology. it ONLY show minor changes within a NARROW range. And it does not PROVE ancestral relationship. Is evolution is all of science somehow in your mind? that it accounts for medicine and lighting too?
Science is made by man as well, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Darwinism is one of them.
Well it's not for some, "http://www.newscientist.com/article/...relatives.html"But the widely accepted notion that the 'greatest overall molecular similarity' is synonymous with 'most closely related' derives not from any empirical evidence but merely from the acceptance without question of the 'molecular assumption': namely, most recently divergent taxa will be most similar in their proteins and DNA because they will have shared a longer lineage of molecular change prior to their divergence and that the pace of molecular change was clocklike in nature. Nevertheless, despite claims to the contrary, the demonstration of molecular similarity does not a priori equate with a demonstration of homology, which must precede any hypothesis of phylogenetic relationship because a demonstration of similarity alone is only phenetic and must be subject to rigorous phylogenetic enquiry."
"...We've all heard that chimpanzees are our closest relatives - that, in fact, they share 98% of their genes with us. But what evidence supports these often-repeated commonplaces? Very little, concludes physical anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz. In his keenly insightful demolition of conventional wisdom on the family relationships between apes and humans, Schwartz provides a fresh examination of fossil evidence, modern anatomy and physiology, and DNA....
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ape-Orangu...5539303&sr=8-3
Schwartz and Grehan are both evolutionist but I point this out to show that what you consider proof beyond doubt "2+2=4" is not as solid as you'd suppose. the details of the evidence make the case stronger or weaker by degrees in any place, not the assumption of the conclusion.
read it.here's the problem, Evolution claims so much, you say that "IT" is a reality. Well there are different bits of "it" that are true, and bits that are not, and bits that are hyposiss, and bits that are proven, and LARGE bits that are guesses and fairytales. ALL of it is said to be EVOLUTION that "only religious fanatics" question or can deny.
You guys don't like the term Marco Evolution but the fact is there are different aspect of evolution that go under specific names. Darwinism , neo Darwinism, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, transpremia are some of the popular terms that are out there that I know of.
I'll assume based on what you've said that you both think that gradualism ("Gradualism is the theory that evolution occurs slowly and consistently along periods of time.") is THE way all life have transformed since... um... well the Creation of life. But you do realize that some evolutionist do not agree. they think that there was NO "evolution" for long periods of time then sudden burst of "evolution". It's how they try to explain things like the Cambrian explosion and THE HORRIBLE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS!!!!! Darwin Himself said that there should be millions of transitional forms everywhere and HOPED -BELIEVED-- that one day many would be found, well he's been disappointed. there are still no decent line of transitional forms and clear ancestory for anything.
you say that its gradual. well what does a slug do with 1/2000th of an eye?
How does natural selection make that mutation reoccur for a millions generations and make RANDOM improvements that infer some REPRODUCTIVE advantage (cause those are the only ones that count in evolution) until we get the all of the nuero pathways, cognitive interpretations, light spectrum range, behavioral changes, instructions for all parts to reproduce correctly in various species, etc etc ? "the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that "it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear.". 2+2=4. Math says evolution Anit working. period.
One has to be blind not to see that evolution cannot do what it claims to do in MICRO steps. and there is no biological process known and no evidence for sudden none gradual MACRO POSITIVE mutations like the eye, or even less complex organs.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Senior Member
Are you saying we should abandon modern medicine so maybe we can develop a resistance via the evolutionary process? I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at.
Sounds like a reasonable things to do... Anyway, this part of the Bible is so ambiguous it's impossible to debate. Too many assumptions are made.
The second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to closed systems. The Earth certainly is not a closed system. The universe being closed is up for debate.
Not all abnormal cell mutation is malignant. What is your point? Some cancers are caused by personal decisions yes. Some aren't.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a Comanche Stealth Helicopter is more advanced than a yeast cell.
for the most part, yes, it has proved correct in every observation and experiment to date
I suppose researching how DNA replicates will yield an answer. SRM machines are many many decades away and even then it will be at the nano and micro level. A testament to science.
Yes it does. What creature today disproves the theory?
You're absolutely correct, thankfully we've modernize the theory. Something your Bible is unable to do. You are stuck in the middle ages with a book written by ignorant desert nomads.
What bits of evolution has been proven false in observation or experiment. Please link me the paper.
Gaps are to be expected. Not all past creatures were fossilized and we certainly haven't found close to everything. New discoveries are made every year. They all support the theory.
There are many types eyes with varying degrees of complexity.
Where is this math? I wouldn't trust an accountant with launching a satellite nor a mathematician with evolution.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote