RE: The Argument From Design
August 8, 2011 at 2:22 am
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2011 at 2:57 am by Godscreated.)
(August 5, 2011 at 10:07 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:(August 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm)Godschild Wrote:(August 5, 2011 at 5:03 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:
Just as I suspected, the best you can do is scream “You can’t prove it!” Unfortunately for you, your very intelligent, nuclear engineer preacher with the bad case of belief bias has imparted to you a pathetic understanding of the concepts of facts, evidence and proof. For example: Changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time is a fact. One you could demonstrate to yourself by doing a little flower gardening and crossing two different colors of the same species of flower and observing what the following generations looks like. This very same change of alleles is also evidence of evolution. You might not accept it, but that is likely due in large part to the conformation bias your very intelligent, nuclear engineer preacher is ensuring you don’t leave church without. Finally, the number of confirmed human endogenous retrovirus K insertions in identical chromosomal locations shared by humans and the rest of the primate family proves that you and the monkey at the local zoo are descended from a common ancestor.
Now before you start screaming that “I can’t prove it” or “God did it” there is something I’d like for you to consider. First is that you have already admitted that you can’t prove God exists. Your belief in creationism relies entirely on your faith in the recorded beliefs of people that had an extremely limited understanding of even the most basic principles of science. On the other hand I can prove that viruses exist through the application technology combined with modern scientific method. I can also prove viruses are responsible for horizontal gene transfer to organisms including humans. Finally, I can prove that humans and other primates share multiple identical HERV insertions, and that the distribution of those insertions is consistent with evolution in every way.
I did not scream anything, you need to turn down your hearing aid. I did not say I could not prove God, I said that what I would use you would not accept. Now for your flowers they change colors big deal, let's see if you keep cross pollinating them if we will get a tree or maybe a man eating vine, that would be cool. I bet if you do that for 10,000 generations the best you will do is a rainbow colored flower of the same exact species. Maybe you can show me that stuff but it in no way can prove evolution, there is no evidence ie. facts to prove that any one species has turned into another species. As for my pastor you could only hope to be as smart as he is, now for the one thing that stands out in what he has shown me is this, that the most reliable dating we have shows that the earth is about 50,000 years old. I have no problem with that but you should, because that puts an end to the number of years it would take for evolutionary processes to work. Carbon 14 dating is highly unreliable because you can not know the amount of carbon present during the time of the dinosaur, not even 100,000 years ago, so you have no test samples to go by, we know that carbon does not stay at a consistant level.
[/quote]
(August 7, 2011 at 8:28 am)Gawdzilla Wrote:(August 3, 2011 at 12:17 am)Godschild Wrote: Uncoordinated huh. Without your big toe you would have difficulty walking. Seems like a good design to me I like walking.
Making a virtue out of a flaw won't prove your point. Bipedalism kills women in childbirth, among other issues with that "design".
Would you design a stool with just two legs? (Will not you, Buddha knows what you'd design.) Rather, would a stool designed with two legs make any sense? We're constantly fight gravity, it can take us years to learn how to do that consistently. A Thompson's gazelle is on its feet in minutes after birth, and can run within the hour.
If a Thompson's gazelle does not get on it's feet and ready to run shortly after birth, shortly after birth it becomes a lion's lunch, there is a need for it to run soon after birth, we do not have that need. I'm not making a virtue out of a flaw, it's a fact without your bigtoe you will have trouble walking, our feet allow us great mobility that a club would never give us. Most childern are walking by eighteen months and for the ones that are not it is usually some kind of handicap that slows down the process of learning to walk, so I do not know where you get years from. By the way the only adults I know that have trouble with gravity are drunks and drugies. What does a two legged stool have to do with anything, to answer your question no I would not build a stool with two legs, I would use three though it's more stable than one with four legs, I build furniture I should know. If you think man would be better off with three or four legs and childern running within a few hours of birth then why did your evolution not do that. I do not know if you have childern but if you do I'm going to guess that your glad they could not run within hours of birth. Now for one last thing go and read the third chapter of Genesis and you will find there a statement made by God that He was going to increase the pain a woman has bareing childern, He said nothing about it being harder on the father that's why kids are not running within the first hours of birth, I think you know who would have to chase them down, I'll give you a hint she will still be in bed.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
