[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism completely refutes ID

[Heidi]

That is not quite what I asked. Can you site instances where something less sophisticated creates something more sophisticated, or something inanimate creates something that is animate. Also an organism growing is not what I had in mind: I'm talking about a discrete organism giving rise to another, substantially more sophisticated discrete organism.

Umm... evolution.
Also, a random... thing of H2O molecules (less "sophisticated") in a water droplet or whatever gives rise to a much more "sophisticated" snowflake.

a bunch of hot and cool winds, water, moisture, etc. (less "sophisticated" gives rise to more "sophisticated" hurricane, or tornadoes, or water spouts (which are basically tornadoes, I know), etc.

what exactly is the point of asking that? if I give you an example, you'll just say god made it possible or something.... but actually they all work according to physics, and so do all the chemicals that gave rise to all the organisms on earth... which still all work according to physics.

Sorry, but a cell can only respond to its nucleus which is only re-enforced by outside stimuli. This, a bacterial cell will only become more virulent when it is acted upon by an outside stimuli, such as medication. And that is why bacteria and viruses are becoming more reistent to medications. Again, no creation can ever be superior to its creator because it couldn't even exist without its creator.

And scientists still haven't been able to explain, nor will they ever be able to explain, how the first atoms, molecules, quarks, electrons, protons, etc. came into being in the first place, much less how they were arranged to form animals, plants, and humans! And humans have been around for how long? :o Millions of years, according to evolutionists? So if they haven't been able to figure this out in millions of years, then thinking they can in any generation is nothing more than "delusions of grandeur" plain and simply.

 

[peace4all]

and christians still haven't been able to figure out how God came about, but apparently He still exists, still happened and everything right?

Idunno bout you, however about a year ago, I attended a wedding for a person I didn't even know.

My mom works for a developmentally disabled home, and works with adults ages 30-60 that have various genetic diseases and problems. Now, these people are 100% free to do basically whatever they want. (binding it is legal) so yes, occasionally people have sex. Well, apparently years ago, 2 of the clients engaged in intercourse and the "miracle" baby was born (it was very unlikely that the mother, karen, could have a child) now, I don't know, but the fact that the wedding I attended, was for that young baby boy, who has no genetic problems, and manages his own small buisness, makes me think that sometimes, the created can be more capable than the creator. I am not saying that disabled people are any less of a human, I am just stating that although pretty much, a total fluke in gene coding, 2 people that have severe disabilities, were able to create one near perfect human.

Idunno if that is what your looking for, I know you guys probably don't like reading my stories of disabled individuals, But hey, I believe what I see, and that is something that I see.



and heidi. Since humans have been around for a whole 6000 years, why did it take them soo long to invent the car huh? why did it take them soo long to realize that the earth revolved around the sun huh? I mean c'mon they had 6000 years!

 

[PDoug]

peace4all,

The problem with what you suggested, is that the offspring of the disabled couple, has abilities that lie within the range of abilities of human beings. That is why I stipulated that the created has to be markedly superior than the creator. If a couple gave rise to a child who could e.g. fly, or had intellect significantly greater than the current known range of human intellect, and these abilities made the child overall significantly greater than human beings in general, then I believe you would have something.

 

[peace4all]

ahh alrighty, I must have missed where that was pointed out. srry about that.

 

[Oran_Taran]

I'm not talking about a substance growing into another substance: I'm talking about one discrete substance producing another discrete, significantly more sophisticated substance.

You mean like humans making computers? They may not be able to laugh, but they are more sophisticated in some ways. Much more than humans.

Sorry, but a cell can only respond to its nucleus which is only re-enforced by outside stimuli.

And it's all chemistry.

And that is why bacteria and viruses are becoming more reistent to medications.

no, it's because they're getting mutations.

much less how they were arranged to form animals, plants, and humans!

That IS being explained. It's all about chemistry.

And humans have been around for how long? Millions of years, according to evolutionists?

Not many, and of course there are plenty of things that we are finding out even now. We're not gods you know.

The problem with what you suggested, is that the offspring of the disabled couple, has abilities that lie within the range of abilities of human beings.

not the parents... the point is that two "less sophisticated" gave rise to a "more sophisticated" thing. It doesn't matter how OTHER humans are like, the couple are still "less sophisticated" than the children.

That is why I stipulated that the created has to be markedly superior than the creator

If a couple gave rise to a child who could e.g. fly,

so THAT is what you meant by "markedly superior"?
uh... FYI, nobody said that was possible. That just doesn't happen. Evolution is VERY gradual, and takes a LONG time. fish didn't have birds as babies. That's just impossible.
It is through very tiny improvements that organisms evolve.

 

[Grengor]

Good post, but I'd just like to correct you, "It's through very tiny improvements that populations evolve.

 

[Grengor]

Good post, but I'd just like to correct you, "It's through very tiny improvements that populations evolve.

 

[Heidi]

and christians still haven't been able to figure out how God came about, but apparently He still exists, still happened and everything right?

Idunno bout you, however about a year ago, I attended a wedding for a person I didn't even know.

My mom works for a developmentally disabled home, and works with adults ages 30-60 that have various genetic diseases and problems. Now, these people are 100% free to do basically whatever they want. (binding it is legal) so yes, occasionally people have sex. Well, apparently years ago, 2 of the clients engaged in intercourse and the "miracle" baby was born (it was very unlikely that the mother, karen, could have a child) now, I don't know, but the fact that the wedding I attended, was for that young baby boy, who has no genetic problems, and manages his own small buisness, makes me think that sometimes, the created can be more capable than the creator. I am not saying that disabled people are any less of a human, I am just stating that although pretty much, a total fluke in gene coding, 2 people that have severe disabilities, were able to create one near perfect human.

Idunno if that is what your looking for, I know you guys probably don't like reading my stories of disabled individuals, But hey, I believe what I see, and that is something that I see.



and heidi. Since humans have been around for a whole 6000 years, why did it take them soo long to invent the car huh? why did it take them soo long to realize that the earth revolved around the sun huh? I mean c'mon they had 6000 years!

God is omniscient and we humans are not. He has already explained how we came about. But only men who claim to be more omniscient than God will think they know better than He does how we and the world were created. But those who do not think they know better than God what the truth is, simply listen to what God has revealed to us.

So again, why do you want to become as omniscient as God is and figure everything out for yourself when you can't do that? :o

And the reason it took man so long to invent the car is because we are not as intelligent as we think we are. And that is why we need God for answers, not our fallible human minds. Only when scientists "discover" how God's laws work, not refute them, can they figure out how to make things properly. But since the nature of the human being is to reject God's laws, he learns very, very slowly.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Well said, Heidi!

On this thread's title, it is in fact the overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design that refutes Darwin drivel - as I just said on BBC Radio Merseyside phone-in, @ 12.10-12.20, right after the Nutty Prof, Richard (Dorky) Dawkins was interviewed @ his arrogant lies on Channel 4 last night

As God asked, in Job 38-42 Master-piece, "Where you there when I.....?

As 1 Corinthians 1 reminds us, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

As 2 Tim 3 says, in the last days there are many who mock & scoff @ God & His Word

But Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of Me & My words, I will be ashamed of you If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father"

As God said in Ezekiel 2-3, "Don't be afraid...pass on My warnings"

Paul spoke of 'the foolishness of preaching'

But as God said, in Isaiah 55, "My Word will never return to Me void, but will always accomplish the purpose for which I sent it, as surely as does the rain & the snow"

Let's claim the precious promise that the Holy Spirit will remind folk of all that Jesus has said

& the promise of Joel 2 that He will leak to folk in dreams & visions - for when they sleep, their resistance is nil

I reminded listeners that, many times 1983-1997, I'd been on the show to talk @ Bible prophecy

Again, I said that the rebirth of Israel in the year I was born - 1948 - was oft-prophesied as the start of this climax generation of history, which will see Jesus return

The then-EEC was also born then - as prophesied in Daniel 7 for these last days: a revived Roman Empire that will crush, trample & devour victims until the Ancient of Days crushes it

Relevant to topic @ Intelligent Design?

Yes: God did not just design the visible things - the Bible even says that the unseen things are more important

It says God planned - designed - the way of salvation before He created the world

"How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?"

The Bible also says that man may make his plans, but God thwarts the plans of man & brings about His own purposes - His own design

Have you fitted your life into God's wise design by repenting of sin & asking Jesus to live in your heart as Saviour & Lord, reader?

I'm sure the Word 4 Today on http://www.ucb.co.uk begins a 4-part series on God's leading & guiding us, with the promise of leading us along paths we have not known

If all BBC radio phone-ins are the same, I'm sure each caller is still rationed to 1 appearance a month, yes?

That means God may be calling you to step out in faith on your local 1, so do make a few notes before you go on, OK?

I'll close with the line I'd meant to close with on the radio, but forgot in the barrage of questions...

When you pooper-scoop evo-loopy-poop...

don't forget to wash your hands now!! 8-)

God bless!

Ian :-D

 

[ArtGuy]

I'm not talking about a substance growing into another substance: I'm talking about one discrete substance producing another discrete, significantly more sophisticated substance.

You mean like humans making computers? They may not be able to laugh, but they are more sophisticated in some ways. Much more than humans.

Well, not so much. A computer is more sophisticated at, say, matrix manipulation and other mathematical feats, because it's designed to be. But it's very subpar in other things. On balance, the computer as a whole is grossly inferior to the human mind as a whole. The most sophisticated neural networks we have right now have around 1000 artificial neurons. The human brain has around 100 billion. We still don't really understand how the human mind works enough to adequately simulate it with technology.

Really, saying that a computer is more sophisticated than a human because it can crunch numbers faster is like saying that a bulldozer is more sophisticated because it can push more weight. You have to consider the whole package, and if you do, it's apparent that nothing we've ever created comes close to the complexity of the human mind.

 

[protos]

These are some of the least formed arguments against creationism I've seen up-to-date. I need reznwerks, he at least makes logical comments even if they're not supported by science.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Good post, but I'd just like to correct you, "It's through very tiny improvements that populations evolve.

Right. Sorry :P

You have to consider the whole package, and if you do, it's apparent that nothing we've ever created comes close to the complexity of the human mind.

I agree, but the point is that computers ARE more sophisticated in many respects.

 

[PDoug]

The problem with what you suggested, is that the offspring of the disabled couple, has abilities that lie within the range of abilities of human beings.

not the parents... the point is that two "less sophisticated" gave rise to a "more sophisticated" thing. It doesn't matter how OTHER humans are like, the couple are still "less sophisticated" than the children.

The problem is that taken as a whole, humanity has not created human beings greater than itself, for the over 6,000 years it has been in existence. Therefore humanity does not show the capacity to create things or beings that are overall greater than itself.

That is why I stipulated that the created has to be markedly superior than the creator

[quote:317d7]If a couple gave rise to a child who could e.g. fly,

so THAT is what you meant by "markedly superior"?
uh... FYI, nobody said that was possible. That just doesn't happen. Evolution is VERY gradual, and takes a LONG time. fish didn't have birds as babies. That's just impossible.
It is through very tiny improvements that organisms evolve.[/quote:317d7]
That is why evolution so suspect: because it proposes something that is virtually impossible to prove, and it proposes a principle that we just do not see around us: that something less sophisticated can create something that is substantially more sophisticated.

 

[PDoug]

The problem with what you suggested, is that the offspring of the disabled couple, has abilities that lie within the range of abilities of human beings.

not the parents... the point is that two "less sophisticated" gave rise to a "more sophisticated" thing. It doesn't matter how OTHER humans are like, the couple are still "less sophisticated" than the children.

The problem is that taken as a whole, humanity has not created human beings greater than itself, for the over 6,000 years it has been in existence. Therefore humanity does not show the capacity to create things or beings that are overall greater than itself.

That is why I stipulated that the created has to be markedly superior than the creator

[quote:f8920]If a couple gave rise to a child who could e.g. fly,

so THAT is what you meant by "markedly superior"?
uh... FYI, nobody said that was possible. That just doesn't happen. Evolution is VERY gradual, and takes a LONG time. fish didn't have birds as babies. That's just impossible.
It is through very tiny improvements that organisms evolve.[/quote:f8920]
That is why evolution so suspect: because it proposes something that is virtually impossible to prove, and it proposes a principle that we just do not see around us: that something less sophisticated can create something that is substantially more sophisticated.

 

[PDoug]

The problem with what you suggested, is that the offspring of the disabled couple, has abilities that lie within the range of abilities of human beings.

not the parents... the point is that two "less sophisticated" gave rise to a "more sophisticated" thing. It doesn't matter how OTHER humans are like, the couple are still "less sophisticated" than the children.

The problem is that taken as a whole, humanity has not created human beings greater than itself, for the over 6,000 years it has been in existence. Therefore humanity does not show the capacity to create things or beings that are overall greater than itself.

That is why I stipulated that the created has to be markedly superior than the creator

[quote:e4547]If a couple gave rise to a child who could e.g. fly,

so THAT is what you meant by "markedly superior"?
uh... FYI, nobody said that was possible. That just doesn't happen. Evolution is VERY gradual, and takes a LONG time. fish didn't have birds as babies. That's just impossible.
It is through very tiny improvements that organisms evolve.[/quote:e4547]
That is why evolution so suspect: because it proposes something that is virtually impossible to prove, and it proposes a principle that we just do not see around us: that something less sophisticated can create something that is substantially more sophisticated.

 

[Oran_Taran]

The problem is that taken as a whole, humanity has not created human beings greater than itself, for the over 6,000 years it has been in existence

how is that a problem? who said that we would?
besides, whole species don't evolve, populations do.

That is why evolution so suspect: because it proposes something that is virtually impossible to prove,

natural selection, sexual selection, beneficial mutations, speciation, and many other things HAVE been proven.

and it proposes a principle that we just do not see around us: that something less sophisticated can create something that is substantially more sophisticated.

not how you define it. Evolution doesn't say humans will EVER have babies that have wings, from one generation to the next, etc.
You're simply misinterpreting it.
It's more like a spectrum of colors in a computer. From one pixel to another, you might not be able to tell the difference in color since it's so tiny. But as you keep on moving through the pixels, the tiny differences add up and you CAN tell a difference from the original pixel. Very simple concept really.

 

[MrVersatile48]

If Saturday..
is as nice as today..
CU..
@ Chester Zoo? :-D

Evo-loopies will NEVER find the MILLIONS of 'missing links' - @ EVERY so-called step of the so-called evolutionary (loopy!) ladder

Why?

They don't exist 8-)

Darwin drivel is brainwashing indoctrination, as I said on BBC Radio Merseyside on Tues, @ 12.10/12.20 :angel:

So...

Don't be brainwashed!!! :roll:

CU @ Chester Zoo picnic area Sat lunchtime :D

I'll have my praise tapes playing under a picnic table :-D

All the above invite has echoed round Liverpool's best acoustic spots today

Y not tape it - talk slow & emphasise the consonants to make the words carry clearer further, OK? - & play it in your local precincts & beauty spots this lovely day!!

Right back with link to my gum-chewing Elvis pic... :o

See profile??

 

[Oran_Taran]

Evo-loopies will NEVER find the MILLIONS of 'missing links' - @ EVERY so-called step of the so-called evolutionary (loopy!) ladder

I agree. Nothing, NOTHING is perfect.
There are hundreds of ex-missing links, that we now call transitional fossils though.

 

[MrVersatile48]

C U Sat @ EU's best zoo - http://www.chesterzoo.org

Bootle folk get 10.30am train & L'pool folk, 1 between 10.45-11.0am

The more who come to Chester Zoo @ High Noon, the better the discounts, yes?

Altogether now, 1/2/3..

Do not forsake me, Oh My Darling..

Altogether now, 1/2/3..

We're all going to the zoo tomorrow..

zoo tomorrow..zoo tomorrow..

We're all going to the zoo tomorrow..

We can stay all day...

We're going to the zoo..

zoo..zoo..

How @ U?

U? U?

U can come too..

too.. too..

We're going to the zoo..zoo..zoo..

& evo-loopies will NEVER find the MILLIONS of 'Missing Links'...

because..

THEY DON'T EXIST - DARWIN DRIVEL IS BRAINWASHING INDOCTRINATION

SO..

DON'T BE BRAINWASHED...

Altogether now, 1/2/3..

We're all going to the zoo tomorrow..

zoo tomorrow..zoo tomorrow..

We're all going to the zoo tomorrow..

We can stay all day...

We're going to the zoo..

zoo..zoo..

How @ U?

U? U?

U can come too..

too.. too..

We're going to the zoo..zoo..zoo..

 

[Drew]

The composition of the human mind speaks nothing, nada, nil, zippo as to the existence or non-existence of a human soul.

If I were a bettin' man, I would bet against the existence of a human "soul". Part of my reasons are biblical, part are "philosophical" and part are "scientific". In the present context, I will only talk (very briefly) about the "scientific" issue.

It seems to me that evidence is mounting suggesting an intimate relationship between between the physical constitution and organization of the brain and almost every aspect of our phenomenological lives (our felt experiences - sensations, emotions, "experienced" thoughts, etc). I claim that it is this ensemble of phenomenology that is what we are really talking abouth when we use the word "soul". So, it would not surprise me if the scientific enterprise will (eventually) build a complete explanation of how "soul" is inextricably bound up in the purely physical.

Having said this, I admit that my belief in the existence of "free will" is a real challenge for such a view.