"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Somewhat ot but my nickname for you is "krinkov".Kurieuo wrote:It'll be good when you eventually become one then.
You'll be able to put YECs in their place scripturally!
Why that's? Because you want to use one on me, or you think I'm dangerous?Audie wrote:Somewhat ot but my nickname for you is "krinkov".Kurieuo wrote:It'll be good when you eventually become one then.
You'll be able to put YECs in their place scripturally!
![y/:]](./images/smilies/yahoo/20.gif "Raised eyebrow"){kind=small}
Not only that but we don't in all of oir history of human beings know of any non natural ways to give rise to the sort of specified complexity that we see in life , but intelligence has been seen to produce it over and over and over again, but some people just don't want to believe it no matter what inductive history and inductive science tells us and they will leap through hoops to should to it .Philip wrote:Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - now THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
kettle is more like itKurieuo wrote:Why that's? Because you want to use one on me, or you think I'm dangerous?Audie wrote:Somewhat ot but my nickname for you is "krinkov".Kurieuo wrote:It'll be good when you eventually become one then.
You'll be able to put YECs in their place scripturally!
Thinking of a nickname for you and "car" comes to mind for some reason.
or was it pot ?But Philip she doesn't need scientific proof as long as the worldview paradigm said it happened this wayPhilip wrote:Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - now THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
True, Bip! For many, their closed mind and determined resistance, their own personal ego, these are their biggest obstacles to faith - rather than some supposed lack of information. Plus they don't have to deal with absolutes that the little god they see in the mirror every morning doesn't set. But one truly doesn't know what REAL love or freedom is until they believe, or of how selfish we all often are.But Philip she doesn't need scientific proof as long as the worldview paradigm said it happened this way
Philip that's nonsense she knows that love is just a series of chemical interactions with electrical impulses . Through in some neurons and voila , instant love . We are just pieces if meat that happened to come togethers through blind chance and chemical interactionPhilip wrote:True, Bip! For many, their closed mind and determined resistance, their own personal ego, these are their biggest obstacles to faith - rather than some supposed lack of information. Plus they don't have to deal with absolutes that the little god they see in the mirror every morning doesn't set. But one truly doesn't know what REAL love or freedom is until they believe, or of how selfish we all often are.But Philip she doesn't need scientific proof as long as the worldview paradigm said it happened this way
No more significance than me reading "phil" as "pithecanthropus".Kurieuo wrote:Why that's? Because you want to use one on me, or you think I'm dangerous?Audie wrote:Somewhat ot but my nickname for you is "krinkov".Kurieuo wrote:It'll be good when you eventually become one then.
You'll be able to put YECs in their place scripturally!
Thinking of a nickname for you and "car" comes to mind for some reason.
bippy123 wrote:Paul if genesis states that animals were created after their own kind , it is a bit harder to explain how common descent happens unless the evolution happened the way that the wife of Carl Sagan (Lynn margolis) says where there were multiple common descent happenings, which then isn't really common descent in the traditional way we understand it .PaulSacramento wrote:Really?Genesis DIRECTLY contradicts Evolution:
Where does Genesis DIRECTLY state that living organisms do NOT change and adapt ?
Because that is the whole core of evolution.
Evolution states that all life started from the very base materials on this planet, ie: The Earth.
Does Genesis DIRECTLY contradict this?
Genesis says that the earth brought forth all vegetation and animal life.
No contradiction there.
I grant you this though, the biggest issue facing those Christians that believe in evolution is where do Adam and Eve fit in.
Are you saying that God started with one animal and the ability to change was pre programmed into that one celled creature ? And how does this jive with the Cambrian explosion where there seems to be no descendants of the major 7 body plans that just almost suddenly appeared with no realistic ancestors .
I could acceot a guided evolution and in fact intelligent design isn't against guided evolution but the gaps in these stages makes it a lot hard to jive with the theory . Like I said , the way Rick explained it makes sense but we need to explain the major difficulties like the Cambrian explosion to make more sense of it .
I will show u posts from all the major intelligent design advocates that show that intelligent design isn't anti evolution but it's definately anti natural evolution . I still have a hard time understanding how they can acceot it with the Cambrian explosion , but hopefully I'll read up more on this .
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science- ... uest-post/
Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. — page 109 of “The Design of Life”And dembski are wells are both bible believing Christians even though wells is part of a Christian group that believes that some guy in Korea is the next messiah or next prophet.Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.– IBID, page 142
This kind of says what Byblos and Rick are talking about , that an input of intelligence is being shown as the best explanation for these different kinds of animals .
This kind of reminds me of the car analogy where it shows how a car in 1910 changed over time to look like the car of today . This was first brought up by an evolutionist to show how this proved evolution , but was quickly scraped when he realized that this was proof for intelligent design.
Ok so genesis says that God created each animal after their own kind . Genesis doesn't however say how God did this .
I happen to lean towards a non common descent belief because of the major differences in change is harder to explain between the different kinds and the fact that breeding shows a limit to the amount of change that an animal can go through , such as dog breeding and cat breeding , but it doesn't necessarily have to be anti evolution , but it's definately against a natural explanation of evolution or materialistic evolution .
I just happen to believe that genesis jives more with a non Macroevolutionary explanation of life .
1) Intelligent design doesn't necessitate that life as it is, was the way it was created. ID has no problem with life changing.PaulS wrote:
Bibby, While Genesis says that God created animals after their own kind, what does that mean? and of course it also states that the earth is what brought forth life.
My issue with Intelligent design and the view that God created ALL life AS IS is two fold:
It does not account for the evidence we have of change.
It suggest that life forms like parasites and such, were created AS IS by God, that some of the most cruel and horrific methods of reproduction in the animal world were created AS IS by God.
You can see the issue there.
Perhaps if you had filaria or guinea worm you'd wonder what god meant when he was done and pronounced it all to be "good"?RickD wrote:1) Intelligent design doesn't necessitate that life as it is, was the way it was created. ID has no problem with life changing.PaulS wrote:
Bibby, While Genesis says that God created animals after their own kind, what does that mean? and of course it also states that the earth is what brought forth life.
My issue with Intelligent design and the view that God created ALL life AS IS is two fold:
It does not account for the evidence we have of change.
It suggest that life forms like parasites and such, were created AS IS by God, that some of the most cruel and horrific methods of reproduction in the animal world were created AS IS by God.
You can see the issue there.
2) You've mentioned this more than once, about parasites. I still can't understand what's the issue with parasites, or any predatory animals. They are a necessary part of the earth's ecosystem. They were created for a reason. Animals killing other animals is a necessary part of certain animals' nature. Like when my cat plays with its prey before he kills it. Unless we are looking at the cat's methods as we would a human's, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a cat being a cat. Or a predatory wasp being what it was created to be. Each life is very efficient at what is supposed to do.
Is the world "bad"? Serious question.Audie wrote:Perhaps if you had filaria or guinea worm you'd wonder what god meant when he was done and pronounced it all to be "good"?RickD wrote:1) Intelligent design doesn't necessitate that life as it is, was the way it was created. ID has no problem with life changing.PaulS wrote:
Bibby, While Genesis says that God created animals after their own kind, what does that mean? and of course it also states that the earth is what brought forth life.
My issue with Intelligent design and the view that God created ALL life AS IS is two fold:
It does not account for the evidence we have of change.
It suggest that life forms like parasites and such, were created AS IS by God, that some of the most cruel and horrific methods of reproduction in the animal world were created AS IS by God.
You can see the issue there.
2) You've mentioned this more than once, about parasites. I still can't understand what's the issue with parasites, or any predatory animals. They are a necessary part of the earth's ecosystem. They were created for a reason. Animals killing other animals is a necessary part of certain animals' nature. Like when my cat plays with its prey before he kills it. Unless we are looking at the cat's methods as we would a human's, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a cat being a cat. Or a predatory wasp being what it was created to be. Each life is very efficient at what is supposed to do.
Audie wrote:Perhaps if you had filaria or guinea worm you'd wonder what god meant when he was done and pronounced it all to be "good"?RickD wrote:1) Intelligent design doesn't necessitate that life as it is, was the way it was created. ID has no problem with life changing.PaulS wrote:
Bibby, While Genesis says that God created animals after their own kind, what does that mean? and of course it also states that the earth is what brought forth life.
My issue with Intelligent design and the view that God created ALL life AS IS is two fold:
It does not account for the evidence we have of change.
It suggest that life forms like parasites and such, were created AS IS by God, that some of the most cruel and horrific methods of reproduction in the animal world were created AS IS by God.
You can see the issue there.
2) You've mentioned this more than once, about parasites. I still can't understand what's the issue with parasites, or any predatory animals. They are a necessary part of the earth's ecosystem. They were created for a reason. Animals killing other animals is a necessary part of certain animals' nature. Like when my cat plays with its prey before he kills it. Unless we are looking at the cat's methods as we would a human's, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a cat being a cat. Or a predatory wasp being what it was created to be. Each life is very efficient at what is supposed to do.
Precisely, Rick! Who do you supposed created predator/prey relationships, dependencies and designs to begin with? Let's not forget, that this naive way of thinking ANY aspect of killing - EVEN in the animal kingdom - must necessarily deny what God has ordained for earth's ecosystems.Rick: I still can't understand what's the issue with parasites, or any predatory animals. They are a necessary part of the earth's ecosystem. They were created for a reason. Animals killing other animals is a necessary part of certain animals' nature. Like when my cat plays with its prey before he kills it. Unless we are looking at the cat's methods as we would a human's, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a cat being a cat. Or a predatory wasp being what it was created to be. Each life is very efficient at what is supposed to do.
