I'd like to bring up what was said earlier, about apparently "Something can't come from nothing" and you said God created the universe, but nothing created God because it says so in the quran

I don't accept that as valid in this discussion, simply because this thread, as titled by you, is



Please provide another reason.

(March 27, 2013 at 9:03 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't think English is your first language but either way what I'm trying to communicate to you is that I'm not a biology expert, but the biology experts out there disagree with you. You should give your evidence to them, if it is actual evidence then it would be a groundbreaking revelation, well done.

this has to do with logic

our modern atheistic scientist say:


imagine DNA(machine)

so machine(DNA) created car(natural engine) in the factory(nature) without God/Engeener, is this logical???

Atheistic half truth
>>>>>>Machine in the factory created the car<<<<<<
THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR MODERN SCIENTISTS, WHO CUT THIS ENGENER FROM THE MACHINE/FACTORY/PRODUCT

it is logical, only 50%, beacuse yes that is truth that

machine(DNA) created car(natural engine) in the factory(nature) but they forgot to connect it to God/Engeener

without God/engener it is illogical. Athestic belief system is very weak if you know real arguments

Religous 100% truth
>>>>>>Engeners designed and created the car with machine in the factory<<<<<<

DO YOU KNOW UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE problem?

but do you know that even one of the greatest atheist richard dakwins also admit that there is inteligent design in nature
look for your self




but there is also scientist who recognize these inteligent design in nature

If you actually listen to what he says, he does not say God.
He also says that what may have been a source of intelligent design, would had to have come from somewhere in the first place.

It doesn't support your position in the slightest.

The last video, you got from a Christian channel and whilst I'm not discarding it, please try and come up with some unbiased ev-

Hang on, the narrator just said "The theory of intelligent design"

I'm discarding it.

But why are you comparing a motor of a BMW to a human being, or any living thing? The two things aren't comparable surely?
It's like comparing a rolling pin to a flea, and saying well someone made this rolling pin so someone made this flea, where's the connection?

(March 27, 2013 at 9:13 am)ciko83 Wrote: so machine(DNA) created car(natural engine) in the factory(nature) without God/Engeener, is this logical???

Atheistic half truth
>>>>>>Machine in the factory created the car<<<<<<
THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR MODERN SCIENTISTS, WHO CUT THIS ENGENER FROM THE MACHINE/FACTORY/PRODUCT

it is logical, only 50%, beacuse yes that is truth that

machine(DNA) created car(natural engine) in the factory(nature) but they forgot to connect it to God/Engeener

without God/engener it is illogical. Athestic belief system is very weak if you know real arguments

Religous 100% truth
>>>>>>Engeners designed and created the car with machine in the factory<<<<<<

DO YOU KNOW UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE problem?

Could you repeat yourself a few more times? I didn't get the point the first time.

(March 27, 2013 at 9:13 am)ciko83 Wrote: but do you know that even one of the greatest atheist richard dakwins also admit that there is inteligent design in nature
look for your self

LIAR!

It's becoming increasingly likely that you're just an idiot, but in case you're not, let me explain: that video is a common quote mine of Dawkins, overflowing with dishonesty. If you'd actually listen to what was said, you'd see he was, when asked if there was any hypothetical way that intelligent design could be possible, giving his best guess. It's in no way an admission, it's Dawkins doing a thought experiment. It's imagination.

And besides, did you even fucking listen to his answer? Because he certainly didn't say anything about a creator god, did he? He said that it's possible alien designers created life on earth, otherwise known as a possible interpretation of a theory called Panspermia. So even his supposed "admission" of intelligent design doesn't confirm what you are saying it does.

Now, will you admit you were either lying or wrong, there? Will you be man enough to do that, or will you confirm my early diagnosis of idiocy and continue doing what you're doing regardless of arguments against you?

Argumentum ad Nauseum, anyone?

(March 27, 2013 at 9:09 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 27, 2013 at 8:53 am)ciko83 Wrote: let stick to this one.

how could it evolve, how could nature give instructions to different part to connect on correct places?

Already explained in the post above, but let me just copy verbatim what I wrote there, since you apparently didn't see it: The short answer is that there isn't an intelligence guiding it, because organic development is nothing like a construction job. Do you think that your hand was put together piecemeal, first with just bare bones and nerves, and then musculature and skin layered over it separately? No, of course not; it all developed together during your gestational period. It's the same everywhere, dude; it's not a process of "this part goes here, and this part fits onto it there..." but rather an ongoing, fluid development based on the genetic blueprint of the organism in question.

How can I support this claim? Well, non-uniformity: occasionally you get examples of organisms where that development process failed, in the form of mutations. To use your own examples, not every sperm is created equal; some people do have non-motile sperm, for instance. If there was an intelligent designer at work, wouldn't you expect that all these little "machines" would come together the same every time? Why does your god spend so much time putting together these machines in defective ways, if that were the case?

Quote:and by the way, let me clearfy it to you, beacuse you dont think deeply here

Probably best not to insult any part of the group currently wiping the floor with your arguments, dude.

Quote:let say that

primodial bacterial flagellum was this

"ABCD" and then it evolve into this ------>
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP

I'll just say that the process wouldn't be that... jumpy. It's be more like, ABCD evolves into ABCDE, which over time evolves into ABCDEF and so on.

Quote:NOW QUESTIONS ARE,how could nature put different parts on correct places like this ABCD and not like this CBDA?

Couple of things: one is that the ABCD preferred system routinely does come together as CBDA, or any number of different combinations. We call those mutations, and sometimes they're helpful, at others they render the organism completely nonfunctional, or are neutral and provide no benefit or disadvantage. So, now the question to you is, if there is a designer dictating all of this, why does he spend such time making incorrect versions of his design.

The second, is that there's a genetic blueprint that's followed in the development of the organism. That's what "knows" where the parts go, so to speak.

Quote:how could nature know future so it created extra parts EFGHIJKLMNOP on correct places.

Nature doesn't know. Those parts developed gradually, in line with small changes in the genes of the organism. You know... evolution? That's literally the definition of the thing.

Quote:1. how could it create new parts, did it know future so it create for future negine

2. and if it created it, how could it put on correct places in the engine?

Asked and answered above. I don't know why you felt the need to repeat yourself.

Quote:you cant just say The flagellum evolved from a different body part, the type 3 secretory system, most likely

Sure I can, because that's what happened. You can't say no evolutionist has given you proof now that one has. So, apparently your answer is to simply ignore that proof and continue trundling on your way.

Quote:if it evolved, then evolution is only logical if you attached Evolver/God to it. if you say it evolves itself, then i ask you can your mother give birth to herself then? if not, how can then natural engine give birth to itself by evolution???

There's a lot wrong with that logic, but I'll have to focus; evolution isn't a process that requires a beginning. It's just a natural function of the fact that genes exist, and that those genes can differ, and that those differences can either be made to survive into the next generation or die out according to outside forces. You have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, and to me that seems to be that you don't understand evolution. So, would you like to give a little definition of the theory so I can educate your ass, or would you just like to continue arguing from a position of misinformation?

Quote:I'll just say that the process wouldn't be that... jumpy. It's be more like, ABCD evolves into ABCDE, which over time evolves into ABCDEF and so on.

but how did that happen, since mutations are allways harmful. and even if it was trough mutations, it is very difficult to swallow that non-thinking nature create parts for the future engine and put the on correct places.

Quote:We call those mutations, and sometimes they're helpful, at others they render the organism completely nonfunctional, or are neutral and provide no benefit or disadvantage.

no they are are not help anytime,

Neo-Darwinism and Mutations

In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of beneficial mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the left shows the head of a fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.9

Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.
The Fossil Record: No Sign of Intermediate Forms

The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to the unscientific supposition of this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

Quote:So, now the question to you is, if there is a designer dictating all of this, why does he spend such time making incorrect versions of his design.

like what, give me an example

Quote:Nature doesn't know. Those parts developed gradually, in line with small changes in the genes of the organism. You know... evolution? That's literally the definition of the thing.

but how can you believe this man?

if nature cant think, how can stuff just emerge out of nowhere and let say

Now i need a stator for my future motor, and then i need to develop rotor, and after i finished with that i need alo clutch


i really dont know how you people can beleive in this and you call yourself logical people, that is nonsence in myu opinion.

engine is like a puzzle, parts on correct places, to put puzzles you need to think, and yo uadmitted that nature does not think. why is it so difficult for you to accept that God is the creator?

Quote:that is nonsence in myu opinion.

And in my opinion, your opinion is nonsense. Believing without evidence.

Even if everything you post, somehow, proves evolution wrong: the default position is not Goddidit. It doesn't lend any credence to your God hypothesis.

(March 27, 2013 at 9:16 am)Joel Wrote: If you actually listen to what he says, he does not say God.
He also says that what may have been a source of intelligent design, would had to have come from somewhere in the first place.

It doesn't support your position in the slightest.

The last video, you got from a Christian channel and whilst I'm not discarding it, please try and come up with some unbiased ev-

Hang on, the narrator just said "The theory of intelligent design"

I'm discarding it.

Quote:If you actually listen to what he says, he does not say God.
He also says that what may have been a source of intelligent design, would had to have come from somewhere in the first place.

the point is that he admitted tha there is design in nature, does not matetr what he thinks who it is, he can speculate until the end of times. but we have the answer. that is God.