Evidence God Is

[Hockeycowboy]

I have not seen anyone imply otherwise. Perhaps you have misread those posts.

Do you know what the implication was about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what the implication was about?

Your post about Raup that started this was quite the non sequitur. If anything you saw some non existent implication.

 

[viole]

The origin of the turtle shell: Mystery solved
To investigate whether the turtle carapace evolved with any contribution from its ancestors' exoskeleton, Dr. Tatsuya Hirasawa and his team carefully observed developing embryos of Chinese soft-shell turtles, chickens and alligators. In their analysis, they compared the development of the turtle carapace, the chick's ribs and the alligator's bony skin nodules. The researchers found that the major part of the turtle's carapace is made from hypertrophied ribs and vertebrae and therefore derives solely from endoskeletal tissue.

This finding was confirmed by the observation of fossils of the ancient turtle Odontochelys and the ancient reptile Sinosaurosphargis, that both exhibit shells of endoskeletal origin. Odontochelys has a rigid shell instead of a flexible ribcage. And Sinosaurosphargis possesses an endoskeletal shell similar to the turtle's under, and separate from, a layer of exoskeletal bones.

Taken together these results show that the turtle carapace has evolved independently from the exoskeleton. This scenario is also consistent with the recent phylogenetic analyses based on genomic data that have placed turtles in the same group as birds, crocodiles and marine reptiles like Sinosaurophargis, contradicting recent studies based solely on fossil record.

"Recently, genomic analyses had given us evidence that turtles evolved from reptiles closely related to alligators and dinosaurs, not from primitive reptiles as once thought. Our findings match the evolutionary history revealed by the genomic analyses, and we are about to unravel the mystery of when and how the turtle shell evolved," explains Dr. Tatsuya Hirasawa who led the research.

This is the kind of stuff some apparently consider strong and reliable evidence - one assumption after another, and the one that can fit all of them into the better package wins, until another one comes along to replace it.
Well.

I got to thinking... Why don't they check all the bacteria and see if they are missing the genitalia gene? That way, they can work on explaining why they haven't evolved them. Which interpretation gets awarded as the best evidence?
Evolution of Genitals
While the fin-to-limb transition has received considerable attention, little is known about the developmental and evolutionary origins of external genitalia. Similarities in gene expression have been interpreted as a potential evolutionary link between the limb and genitals; however, no underlying developmental mechanism has been identified. We re-examined this question using micro-computed tomography, lineage tracing in three amniote clades, and RNA-sequencing-based transcriptional profiling.

Here we have, in the early known stages of life, seeing fully formed complex living organisms appearing seemingly out of nowhere, and persons are willing to accept fanciful tales to explain their arrival to fit a scripted mythological story called The Theory of Evolution.
We have a whole host of organisms that were supposed to be the first living organisms, still existing for supposedly billions and billions of years, with no change at all, no reproduction that produces major evolutionary change... Wow.

How did male genitalia evolve? Harvard researchers discover origins of reproductive organs

Sexual selection and genital evolution
Explaining genital diversity is a longstanding problem that is attracting renewed interest from evolutionary biologists. New studies provide ever more compelling evidence that sexual selection is important in driving genital divergence. Importantly, several studies now link variation in genital morphology directly to male fertilization success, and modern comparative techniques have confirmed predicted associations between genital complexity and mating patterns across species. There is also evidence that male and female genitalia can coevolve antagonistically. Determining mechanisms of genital evolution is an important challenge if we are to resolve current debate concerning the relative significance of mate choice benefits and sexual conflict in sexual selection.

The Fascinating Evolution of Animal Genitalia (Video)

Yes, these are all so fascinating... Fascinating Fanciful Fairytale imo.
I understand why some persons prefer these fantasies, to the evidently more realistic explanation, so maybe some time in the future, who knows? Perhaps someone might author of another book - The God Delusion : Ripping God to Shreds.

Regarding design.
@Cacotopia Design is not the same as appearance. @QuestioningMind, @blü 2 Design is not the same as patterns. (Please see Randomness in design)
So I made no mention of either. I gave the definition of design, and there is a clear explanation given. It can be read in the OP.

No one therefore is looking at a bird and going, "Hey! It looks like it was designed! Therefore God..."
To illustrate.
When scientists peer at the cell, what do they see?

They see... a cell.

When they peer into the cell, and study its components, and how they work, and for what purpose... what do they see?
Ah. Now they see... DESIGN!

Biology: Cell Structure I Nucleus Medical Media

They may not have seen the designer, but the evidence of design says there is.
Randomness in Design

Spoiler: Randomness in Design

Cell division of meiosis and mitosis
A programmer writes a computer program that creates or generates objects in an environment with randomness applied. The program works as it's designed to - produce an object... with random features, due to the environment never being the same. Like a snowflake.

@viole What is magical, and ridiculous fantasies...
is when one says that all these components somehow assembled themselves in an intelligent manner. Enter the fairy godmother - natural selection.

Explain how natural selection created, or designed the cell. That's right, for more than 150 years they are still trying to see how they can get the genie to grant their wish.

The origin of the first cells remains a mystery
...before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers.
...For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets, called protocells, were presumed to be the first cells. Modern scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell perspective is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The origin of the first cells remains a mystery.

Oops! Whatever happened to the Darwinian transition?
The first cells
The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolutionary theory of life on Earth. The birth of the cell marked the passage from pre-biotic chemistry to partitioned units resembling modern cells. The final transition to living entities that fulfill all the definitions of modern cells depended on the ability to evolve effectively by natural selection. This transition has been called the Darwinian transition.

Give it a few more years. I'm sure the fairy godmother will come true... some day.

@Salvador I should have mentioned that I do agree with you that there is higher intelligence, for obvious reasons.
.

Do you think genitals are the problem of a designer?

I mean, using the same organ for both creating new souls and pee? Really?

Shall we call it SD instead of ID, maybe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

@viole What is magical, and ridiculous fantasies...
is when one says that all these components somehow assembled themselves in an intelligent manner. Enter the fairy godmother - natural selection.

Explain how natural selection created, or designed the cell. That's right, for more than 150 years they are still trying to see how they can get the genie to grant their wish

I have no clue. Nobody knows how the first cell arose. And by definition, what came first, was not subject to natural selection, probably.

Is that your main challenge? That seems to indicate that you are happy with natural selection acting on what came afterwards. In other words, what we know. That we share the same common ancestor, whose origin is unknown, with carrots, pigs, monkeys, fungi, etc.

Right? How does that ignorance about the first cell help your theology then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

Complexity in no way evidences god in any way, so what's your point? Evolution can easily explain complexity. And, it is a natural explanation. All that is required is vast amounts of time and space ... both of which we do, in fact, have. But, what is your argument?

 

[leibowde84]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

Can you explain why you think that complexity somehow provides evidence for god?

 

[nPeace]

How this magic you rely on works.

Exactly how does one poof a species into existence in your model?

blü 2 said:

Specify what you say are the 'assumptions'. Present us with a list of them.
And ─ even more importantly ─ spell out for us what happened instead.

You sure that's what you want? Okay.
Read Genesis chapter 1. It's too long to post here. However, when reading it, think of each day as long periods of time, even thousands of years where various life for were brought forth, lived and died.

blü 2 said:

So you can't list the 'assumptions' you asserted were there? No surprise.
How were they "brought forth"? By magic, as described in Genesis 1? How does that work, exactly?

The ancient Hebrews tell us this...
Jehovah is the all powerful, almighty spirit - full of dynamic energy. He uses his powerful holy spirit which is called his active force - the most powerful force there is - to accomplish his will. Jesus referred to that force as God's finger, and says that God works. He controls it. So it is not a case of magic, but just as we use our fingers to do things, God uses his active force - holy spirit to work.
Jehovah God promises to do a work on the day referred to as Harmageddon, when he will use his active force operative upon his appointed king and his army, to utterly destroy all his opposers.
The way I picture it though, is that energy is converted to matter in any form God chooses, and he uses his holy spirit to do the fashioning for him.

Your response?

Wow, that really sounds handy! How does it actually work? Oh, by magic ...

It seems to me you are repeating yourself. Why is that? Is it Merry-go-round time?

It seems you are just hooked on that word magic, but I already pointed out where the magic is, didn't I?
You are not playing ignorant are you?

You said...
I'm all for science. Science proceeds by examinable evidence, falsifiable statements, repeatable experiments, honest and transparent argument, peer review, scrutiny and re-scrutiny of conclusions. I can further explain to you how science works, should you wish.

You're all for magic. The unnamed magician poofs species into existence for no obvious reason, (and yet by the weirdest of repeated coincidences they line up with the observed sequences of evolution). For my part I have no idea how magic works, and so, since it's at the center of your thesis, I turn to you to explain it to me.

So you are all for science. I realize you don't know or understand what magic is, but I hope you understand what science is.
Science proceeds by examinable evidence. People do that also, so anyone can do science.
falsifiable statements. So falsifiable ideas are presented. We employ that method as well.
repeatable experiments, honest and transparent argument We do carry those out as well.
peer review. Um. Perhaps we don't do it on paper. We aren't publishing anything. However, how reliable is peer review?
Peer-review and publication does not guarantee reliable information
Is there bias associated with peer-review?
Peer-review is by no means perfect. It is itself subject to bias, as most things in research are. Evidence from a peer-reviewed article does not make it reliable, based only on that fact.

For example, there is evidence suggesting poor interrater agreement among peer-reviewers, with a strong bias against manuscripts that report results against reviewers’ theoretical perspectives. Although a study reported in the Journal of General Internal Medicine showed that reviewers agreed barely beyond chance on recommendations to accept/revise vs. reject, editors nevertheless placed considerable weight on reviewer recommendations. In addition, it has been shown that large numbers of public reviews are more thorough in reviewing academic articles than a small group of experts.

There is also ongoing debate about reviewer bias in the single-blind peer review process. Some suggest that if reviewers know the identity of authors, there may be implicit bias against women and those with foreign last names or from less prestigious institutions. Therefore, some researchers argue that double-blind peer review is preferable.

In addition, some argue that, for multidisciplinary articles, it is difficult to recruit reviewers who are well-versed in all the relevant methodologies since they which tend to cover multiple different topics in a single study, which works against authors of such papers.

Examples from the past
No matter what review system is used, or potential bias it could create, there is always the potential for major and minor errors to be missed:

scrutiny and re-scrutiny of conclusions. Yes, most definitely, this is very important to us.

While you prefer conclusions reached that seem like magic, we accept conclusions reached that are in harmony with true science, good reasoning, logical and sensible assessment.
For example
Here we are, living things, with an intelligent mind, with a brain so complex, that with the little intelligence we have, we can barely understand it.
All living things depends on DNA - a genetic code containing the "blueprints" for building vast variety of complex things. In the human genome, the ladders have approximately three billion chemical base pairs made up of two chemical substances we refer to as letters, which spell out coded instructions that must follow specific rules.

Yet you are willing to accept a fanciful story that all of this came about by unguided processes that somehow poofed perhaps billions of chemicals into existence, and brought together just the right ones, not those that would kill any beneficial process, organized them perfectly, packaged them into rock, and shipped them of to a planet that just so happened to be ideally situated, positioned, and perfectly conducive, for receiving that package, protecting the chemicals, giving it the right dose of electrical energy to produce a complex piece of organized "machinery", which would then go on to build more complex "machinery", all perfectly suited for the surface this rock landed on...

There are thoughts in my head right now that I think the Devil will be happy if I let them out, but I am going to do what my God wants me to do - the right thing , and just say. You guys are the ones that believe in magic, and more than that, I believe you are more than happy to believe these ridiculous stories, simply because you don't want to accept that there is a supreme creator, that requires obedience to his moral laws. In other words, people reject God, because they want to do whatever they want without feeling obligated to answer to him for their actions. That's why they feel they must do all they can to convince themselves that there is no intelligent designer, because they are tormented by the fact that they know there is a creator. Hence why they are so angry when the truth is in their face. As @Cacotopia said, it only takes a minute, I think more like seconds, for the blood to boil. I'm sure some burst a vessel or two. LOL.
Isn't that the reason blü 2 you are so willing to defy all true science, and refer to natural selection as a designer? So here you resort to more magic, to make natural selection a person. LOL.

Then you make this statement -

The unnamed magician poofs species into existence for no obvious reason

No wonder you like to use that word magic so loosely - apparently you believe in it.
We see reason, or purpose in every design. If you really want to see it, it does not required much. All you have to do is open your eyes, open your mind, and open your heart, and it's all there.

This is why those who are not blinded by a biased leaning toward naturalism, can see clearly, that those who are examining the evidence, gathering the facts, sticking to true science, and using reason, logic, and common sense, come to the correct conclusion that there is an intelligent designer.
This is what I believe.

 

[nPeace]

Looks like you have been pretty busy with this thread... I haven't had time to reply or review other posts in this thread.. hoping to study further all that has been said with others so I don't duplicate questions or our time...

I'm a little confused on your view here.. a couple of quick questions.

1. So I take it you don't believe in the common biblical view of a 6 day creation but a "designed" creation over billions of years... i.e. the designer sparked the big bang to the the formation of earth?
2. And you believe life was designed and created on earth 3.5b years ago not 6 or 7 thousand years ago? And you view the designer using evolution, thus the designer programmed and deployed the mutations needed for new species? And possibly designing extinctions to make changes in the formation of life, i.e. the Permian and KT events?
3. And also you believe that death was natural on earth and not the common biblical view it was brought on earth by the fall of Adam?

I know a lot of the ID people like Steven Meyers and Hugh Ross that have this view.

These views are contradictory to common biblical views by most denominations.

I wouldn't say quite busy, only at times like today, I may not be well, so it might be a bit pressing. When that's the case, I may not spend too much time, depending, but if the posts are short, I try to address them.

1.
Yes, I don't believe in the common view that God spoke things into existence in six days as measured by our day.
I believe God was speaking to his only begotten son who was working alongside him in creation, and God used his holy spirit which is likened to his fingers to carefully create everything, which would have taken thousands of years.
It is not necessary - although it can be the case - that the six creative days were billions of years, since the Bible does not specify any amount of time for the earth being in existence, but the Bible account shows that the heavens and earth existed before the six creative days began.

So think of a vast period of time, when God first created the universe with all the heavenly bodies, including the earth. Think of him working during that period of time to set everything in an organized and orderly fashion.
Then think of Genesis 1:1 as taking up from the point where God is satisfied with the universe. Now he turns his attention to the earth - Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

Look at verse 3 - And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light.
Where did the light come from? The already existing light source - our sun.

So, when we reach Genesis 1:14-18, it is clear that God made the sun, moon and stars, visible from the surface of the earth. In other words, before, light from the sun reached the earth, penetrating its thick cloud and atmosphere.
Now the physical bodies - sun, moon, stars - become visible. Verses 17, and 18 says - God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.

2.
I do not have a specific time period, and I do not believe man can give an accurate one.
The creation of living things, and the forming of new species began a very long time ago, going by my understanding of the Bible account, and took a very long time, during which animals died, and new species were born. I believe in reproduction, and I also believe that within the genes, there are instructions that direct adaptation.

Just as it is today, is how it was back then. We pass on our genes through the process of reproduction.
As is stated here... Acts 17:25, 26
25 ...he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. 26 And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell,
Just as the genes of the one man was designed to code for a specific amount of races of human beings - hence why we never have green men, or purple, or blue, or red, which should happen, I believe, if random processes through mutations and natural selection, according to the theory of evolution were true.

So this was the same with the animals, as described in Genesis 1. Each kind was given the genetic code blueprinted to produce variety in species of their kind - never breaking the barrier God set within their DNA.
Just as he commanded the waters.
Job 38:8-11 8 And who barricaded the sea behind doors When it burst out from the womb, 9 When I clothed it with clouds And wrapped it in thick gloom, 10 When I established my limit for it And put its bars and doors in place, 11 And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther; Here is where your proud waves will stop’?

By the way, mutations are not necessary for new species.They however, are mostly destructive to them.
However, to get a whole new organism mutations must be passed on, but considered how many of those mutations need to be passed on to get a properly functioning and complete organism - keeping in mind that it takes just one harmful mutation to mess things up.
Do you see the problem with evolution by natural selection with mutations?

3.
Death of all living things is natural. This is because everything physical is subject to decay. That is different to what is spirit.
Jehovah is spirit, he made spirit creatures in heaven - his realm. They do not die.

However, Jehovah created them and can destroy them. As the source of life, he can also sustain all life.
So if Jehovah does not want a plant to die, he can sustain it, and it will not die.
This is why he could say to Adam... for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die. Genesis 2:17
He could sustain the man's life, or he could let him die, or even destroy his life.

When Jesus cursed the fig tree, and it withered instantly, Jesus was giving his disciples a powerful lesson on why their having faith in God should have no place for doubt.
Matthew 21:21, 22
19 ...he said to it: “Let no fruit come from you ever again.” And the fig tree withered instantly..
21 In answer Jesus said to them: “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what I did to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And all the things you ask in prayer, having faith, you will receive.”

Anything you don't find to be clear, feel free to ask.

 

[nPeace]

Do you think genitals are the problem of a designer?

I mean, using the same organ for both creating new souls and pee? Really?

Shall we call it SD instead of ID, maybe?

Ciao

- viole

You'll probably make the same argument about the windpipe and swallow-pipe right?

Both are good design. However, my argument is not about whether the design is liked or disliked
Why do you think those arguments are somehow reasonable arguments for this topic?.

It always beats me, so perhaps you can explain, if you don't mind.

I have no clue. Nobody knows how the first cell arose. And by definition, what came first, was not subject to natural selection, probably.

Is that your main challenge? That seems to indicate that you are happy with natural selection acting on what came afterwards. In other words, what we know. That we share the same common ancestor, whose origin is unknown, with carrots, pigs, monkeys, fungi, etc.

Right? How does that ignorance about the first cell help your theology then?

Ciao

- viole

If you knew what you say we know, there would right now be no arguments or debates about it, now would there. Paleontologists often claim that fossils tell us something. But fossils, by themselves, tell us nothing; not even that they are fossils.
So it seems we are all one big ignorant bunch.
Unless of course you have the "ace up your sleeve", and will now pull it out and show me how mutations were guided by nature selection, to evolve whole new organisms.
I like surprises, so surprise me.

By the way, what I presented is an undeniable fact, not an ideology. Care to try disproving it?

@leibowde84, my argument is not about complexity.

 

[Cacotopia]

Removal of a rib, means that rib stays gone. grafting a rib means that rib will regenerate, this is why I get pissed off, you take scientific truths and this is the very twisting of those truths into the lies. To make them fit the creation story.

 

[blü 2]

blü 2 said:

You sure that's what you want? Okay.
Read Genesis chapter 1. It's too long to post here. However, when reading it, think of each day as long periods of time, even thousands of years where various life for were brought forth, lived and died.

You left out the only part that matters: the means by which each example of "various life" was brought forth.

Your reliance on this technique through the ages, weirdly mimicking evolution, is our central and essential disagreement.

Please make clear to me how it's done. Genesis is less than helpful on the point, nor is it explained anywhere else in the bible.

 

[Dell]

I wouldn't say quite busy, only at times like today, I may not be well, so it might be a bit pressing. When that's the case, I may not spend too much time, depending, but if the posts are short, I try to address them.....

Anything you don't find to be clear, feel free to ask.

I notice you use a lot of Bible scriptures in your post..
1. Do you believe in the infallibility of the Bible?

2. If the Designer wrote the bible via oracles like Moses, prophets, apostles, and kings, how is that it cant be authenticated? The bible is known to be a compiled assembly of recopied manuscripts of several generations and through corrupted kings, priest and early Jewish and Christian sects. Compare the bible to the hIstory written in geological columns and space that have never been touched or edited by humans, which is obviously creditable?

3. The Egyption RA predates the Jewish Yahweh as ancient documented creator. Both people have worshipped and died serving. What creditable fact makes one ancient account a truth and the other a myth?

4. If a designer does exist, why the game of faith via in old ancient writings left to human imagination?

P.s. You mentioned your not feeling well, hope your doing better or get well soon..

 

[nPeace]

You left out the only part that matters: the means by which each example of "various life" was brought forth.

Not following you. By means of God's power. Is that what you mean?

I notice you use a lot of Bible scriptures in your post..
1. Do you believe in the infallibility of the Bible?

2. If the Designer wrote the bible via oracles like Moses, prophets, apostles, and kings, how is that it cant be authenticated? The bible is known to be a compiled assembly of recopied manuscripts of several generations and through corrupted kings, priest and early Jewish and Christian sects. Compare the bible to the hIstory written in geological columns and space that have never been touched or edited by humans, which is obviously creditable?

3. The Egyption RA predates the Jewish Yahweh as ancient documented creator. Both people have worshipped and died serving. What creditable fact makes one ancient account a truth and the other a myth?

4. If a designer does exist, why the game of faith via in old ancient writings left to human imagination?

P.s. You mentioned your not feeling well, hope your doing better or get well soon..

I don't believe the Bible is perfect. Nothing in this world is, but we use our judgment in knowing what to believe, and why it's reasonable to do so.
From birth, we trusted our mother without question. As we grew, we learned whether we could trust her or not, and the older we got, we proved whether we could trust her or not.
We can use the same approach with the Bible. I was a babe to the milk of God's word. I didn't understand it , but a few things were true, without question - we observed and experienced them for real.
As I grew up in spiritual understanding, I learned that I could trust what I understood. The older I got in spiritual growth, I proved I could trust it. That's what I have been doing since I started as a babe over two decades ago.

If you are interested in why I have such trust and confidence in what it says, in the RF search bar, type "trust the Bible", and select "search titles only", and type my user name under "Posted by Member". That way you don't have to go the the whole thread, but I gave some reasons there. I didn't get around to adding the other reason on its practically, but you can find a bit on it here.
Why did God use human writers?
See Has the Bible Been Changed or Tampered With?

History is scanty. We can only do the best we can to try to fit together pieces of clues left behind. Historical records are not always accurate, but we have to use a measure of trust, and good judgment.
How can we tell the difference between what is true history, or myth?

Thanks for your well wishes.
Take care.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How is He, "negligent"?

By being able, but unwilling.

He's provided a wonderful letter (the Bible) for us

There's a reason we have a government instead of just sitting there looking at the Constitution all day.

Well, 1 John 3:22 to them..... "and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him." (ESV.com)

Even sinners love those who love them. Why should I be held to a higher standard than God?

There is no religion you can name, that is not concerned with those questions, except they formulated the idea after a seemingly futile pursuit of answers that suits them.

Gautama spent a lot of time trying various means of answering the questions. He then realized the questions were kind of stupid.

There is nothing in the Eightfold Path or Four Noble Truths that I can remember being about gods or afterlives or whatever.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Now this is what I would consider, human religion you referred to

All religions are human-based, at least until you can prove non-humans have a religion.

Okay, so a design - a machine (a caterpillar - tractor) for example... It was designed with various components, which operate in specific ways, to reach an end goal.

*sigh* There. Is. No. Goal. Either the new combo works or it doesn't and most of the time it doesn't, hence spontaneous abortions being quite frequent in many species.

A caterpillar (animal), it has basic components, which allows it to have specific function, with an intended purpose/objective.

The purpose of a caterpillar is to have no purpose. It munches plant matter because it can, not because it feels some existential need to.

Isaiah 40:26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.

Which "He"? In more primitive, more ancient verses, Yahweh is just a district manager, handed the governing of Hebrews by His Father El. His Siblings governed other tribes/nations. This is confirmed by other non-Jewish texts, at least in terms of El being the Dad and everyone else being just part of the Family.

Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none.

Not if we want to include pre-Jewish theology. Yahweh was merely part of a pantheon. Baal Hadad and Anat took part in His murder. Yam, son of El, was renamed Yah(weh) when made "King of Kings" or "King of the Gods". Baal and His followers got upset and killed Yah(weh). I forget how Baal died but I know Mot, God of Death, wanted Him dead. Anat then slew Mot (so She defeated death, not Jesus). I don't just mean stabbed Him or anything, She flat out butchered the Guy, chopping Him up into tiny pieces. I think She might need anger control classes.

‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.

Yahwist prophets wanted, no, needed you to believe that because polytheism means they can't get all the money, er, "divine glory for the Lord".

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

This means God cannot create nor destroy.

What is fascinating to me, is that the organ that is the most complex in the universe, is what utilizes, or processes these - thought and intelligence, and also understanding speech.

I'm more interested when that complicated machine breaks down as it often does.

It has no beginning. It has no end, but is rather the beginning and the end. Isaiah 48:12; Revelation 22:13

There is no way to establish this. If God lived longer than even a single human generation, He could claim to be eternal and it's unlikely humans would be able to counter it. The only way to prove eternity is to somehow show there is no such thing as a beginning or end, but as we have both, we will never be able to prove it even exists.

Our God, Jehovah is AWESOME! His name is MAJESTIC! The Bible is a FANTASTIC and fascinating work that seems clearly evident, it is the inspired word of God.

Not really. The plot would be less than 5 pages long if God had any kind of sense. The ENTIRE story revolves around the drama that follows one of God's many tantrums or ignorant screw-ups. At least the Mahabharata has the good sense to lampshade the narrative issues of its own stories.

Isn't this a lot like Darwin's speculations on finches, that one 'turns into another'?

As Darwin didn't know about genes yet and we can do genetic comparisons all day long if we want to, it's not the same. Just as a paternity test can prove familial relationships, DNA testing can show us which of us species are related more closely than others.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Read Genesis chapter 1.

Genesis 1 doesn't really say much of anything because it's like a teaser trailer. Genesis 2 makes God out to be unbelievably idiotic. He makes male and female species all over the place but when a man comes along, it is SHOCKING that He must also make a female of a species He made that isn't asexual AND He can't even keep the recipe for dirt humans and must resort to bad cloning to make a female. He also makes us in HIS IMAGE and then gripes THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PLOT about how we want to be like gods, when that would make sense IF WE WERE CREATED TO BE IN HIS IMAGE. I mean, God wants to be God, right? His instincts would be our instincts. He positively loathes the idea that creatures made in God's image could do godly things, which apparently also includes making a multi-story building, which He is honestly, HONESTLY afraid will reach to Heaven when people like you say He lives outside the known universe. It is just one big bag of stupid page after page.

How were they "brought forth"? By magic, as described in Genesis 1? How does that work, exactly?

ACME? Like Wile E. Coyote, SUPER Genius, God just checks the "Instant Delivery" box on the item request?

Jehovah God promises to do a work on the day referred to as Harmageddon, when he will use his active force operative upon his appointed king and his army, to utterly destroy all his opposers.

We have things even better than iron chariots now, so He should watch out.

2. Are you sure the ear evolved, as suggested in the article?
3. Are you sure the eye evolved, as suggested in the article?

Yes. It's the most plausible explanation.

Without that 'how' it's still just magic.

If I studied at one of the wizarding schools from the Potterverse, I'd be offended that magic is being dissed like that because I'm sure there are entire classes and "degree programs" of a sort devoted to how magic works.

I tried looking at Pottermore but apparently she hasn't put that much thought into it.

I would imagine Defense Against the Dark Arts, Potions, and Herbology would be the most objective, though. Maybe Magical Creatures, but can we expect Newt to be completely objective about the subject?

I mean, surely they go into the nuts and bolts of spells and such. We only see bits and pieces in the books and movies, but those kids are there for a whole frickin' year. Gotta pad the time somehow.

Scientists try to retrace the path by using one method, and one method only - natural science. It restrict its exploration, and therefore cannot be considered a clear pathway to truth. In fact it does not even try to reach that.

That is the only available method, unless you can describe HOW God does anything. "By the Holy Spirit" doesn't say anything at all. It's like saying a chemist made rubber through chemistry. Duh. HOW did the chemist make rubber?

As you like talking about planes and stuff to "prove" design, should I reverse engineer a plane or should I ask the engineer if he prayed about it or something? Do you even understand how designed things are designed?

There is no evidence to support a house being built from straw and wood whipped up by the wind, much less without anyone putting it together - building it.

And given that houses can fall down, obviously intelligence is not necessary to make one.

The Bible is no science book, but when it comes to true science - observed and demonstrated - it's bang on.

Please explain why God, who had been making males and females for several days, suddenly can't seem to recall how to make a second dirt human.

For one thing they are being formed by someone with intelligence, understanding and wisdom - not he human kind, but vastly superior

So superior He only realizes later a sexual being requires another sexual being to reproduce, even after just making sexual beings for several days.

However, the Bible exists as the oldest know in history, and its writings are about a creator of the universe. Its very first words state the act of creation. That is profound.

There are much older texts that describe the origin of the universe, some with better if still metaphorical knowledge about how things actually work.

The historical accounts are accurate

So you believe the time when King Josiah tells someone to go find a law book, and one just "happens" to be found, which is one book out of the entire OT, which has to mean everything else was made up during his reign at the earliest? Because lots of times the bible claims "people did not know the Lord", which should be impossible if the texts were sitting right there.

Examining the Bible has convinced me that what it says is the truth, and I have lived these experiences. They are real.

You have lived all those experiences, including Ten Plagues, a Global Flood, someone claiming to fix all sin and death, etc? How old are you and where on earth do you live for your life to be filled with such horrors?

It moral principles and values are practical, and timeless

Which is why they felt a sequel was necessary to fix the original stories.

Team studied patient who had part of a rib removed
Eight cm of missing bone and one centimeter of missing cartilage repaired in just six months

That's nice. When they make a woman out of that, let me know.

If women come from ribs, why are there still ribs?

According to the Bible the snake not talking, and the trees did not magically transmit knowledge.

Then God is lying when He calls it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, yes?

Death introduced on all life on earth from the fall of Adam and Eve.

They never ate?

I mean, even if everyone in the Garden of Eden were vegans, plants are still dying when eaten, you know.

It just anther case of not understanding the Bible but seeking to find fault with it.

It's not hard to find fault with a text so full of plot holes you could fly a plane through them.

The Bible writers reported a global flood. It is quite obvious it was an event that was witnessed.

How? Supposedly the story was written by Moses and he wasn't even alive back then. Again, really poor writing.

"Moses" has no problems with a story about an air-tight boat with one window that stays closed most of the time and yet everyone's still alive after having no oxygen for a year.

What is the problem with "all human civilizations on Earth from Noah's sons and wives. And an animal migration from Turkey to their present habitat"?

Please explain how animals crossed entire oceans to get to continents even God doesn't know about because He never mentions them.

What is wrong with the "Tower of Babel being the start of separation of human languages and races"?

If you've ever taken a foreign language class, you will see why this story is really stupid. People get by knowing different languages all the time. In fact, society has pretty much dealt with every "curse" God has ever put to paper:

God: Man will work the fields.
Man: LOL. I'm inventing a tractor.
God: Woman will have painful pregnancies.
Woman: LOL. I'm inventing pain killers.
God: I hate multi-story buildings.
Every Sky Scraper Architect: That's cute.
God: I will make different languages.
People: LOL. Foreign language classes and Google Translate.
God: I will send forth My armies.
Forgot what tribe won: LOL. Iron chariots. Seriously, God, these aren't even weapons, just vehicles. How on earth do You lose to a wheeled platform?
God: I'm gonna destroy earth.
NASA: LOL. Rockets, baby!

So persuade me. What's an example of it, authenticated to scientific standards? How does it work? What impartial studies have been carried out on it? Where can I read them?

Yeah. Like, I want all the people who think Adam was made from dirt go to Home Depot, buy a bag of mulch, and pray to God to make a man out of it. I just want the entertainment value of watching people do a song and dance over some dirt to make it sentient.

We can use the same approach with the Bible. I was a babe to the milk of God's word. I didn't understand it , but a few things were true, without question - we observed and experienced them for real.

And like my parents, I realized they were hypocritical narcissistic sociopaths who don't know nearly as much as they thought they did.

 

[blü 2]

Not following you. By means of God's power. Is that what you mean?

I mean, how does God's power work? What exactly does God know that science doesn't? Science, naturally, would like to know.

 

[Cacotopia]

An invention is created to make survival easier or make a part of existence more convenient. I wouldn't live very long in a malaria infested area of the globe, but someone with sickle cell anemia would. This is an example of an evolutionary adaptation to the environment.

While it can be detrimental to your health if you have the the dominate genes for the disorder, you can be a carrier for it, and be immune to malaria. This trait isn't useful at all in colder regions of the planet, but in tropical environments? Very useful. But if we were a designed creature, what was the intent of designing such a fragile creature, that walks in a manner that exposes all of it's vital organs to any assailants? We were forced to make inventions to cover ourselves from a frankly put, a poor biological design.

 

[nPeace]

Gautama spent a lot of time trying various means of answering the questions. He then realized the questions were kind of stupid.

There is nothing in the Eightfold Path or Four Noble Truths that I can remember being about gods or afterlives or whatever.

You mean he realized they were stupid because after spending most of his life trying to find the answers, he came up empty? I know of school dropouts that did practically the same thing.

All religions are human-based, at least until you can prove non-humans have a religion.

I could agree with you there, because pure worship was replaced by many and diverse forms of worship. However, there is one that is acceptable to God, because he is restoring pure worship. James 1:27

*sigh* There. Is. No. Goal. Either the new combo works or it doesn't and most of the time it doesn't, hence spontaneous abortions being quite frequent in many species.

The printing press at RF broke down, due to a glitch in the system. Therefore, it had no goal.

The purpose of a caterpillar is to have no purpose. It munches plant matter because it can, not because it feels some existential need to.

Take away it's mouth then.

Which "He"? In more primitive, more ancient verses, Yahweh is just a district manager, handed the governing of Hebrews by His Father El. His Siblings governed other tribes/nations. This is confirmed by other non-Jewish texts, at least in terms of El being the Dad and everyone else being just part of the Family.

Not if we want to include pre-Jewish theology. Yahweh was merely part of a pantheon. Baal Hadad and Anat took part in His murder. Yam, son of El, was renamed Yah(weh) when made "King of Kings" or "King of the Gods". Baal and His followers got upset and killed Yah(weh). I forget how Baal died but I know Mot, God of Death, wanted Him dead. Anat then slew Mot (so She defeated death, not Jesus). I don't just mean stabbed Him or anything, She flat out butchered the Guy, chopping Him up into tiny pieces. I think She might need anger control classes.

Yahwist prophets wanted, no, needed you to believe that because polytheism means they can't get all the money, er, "divine glory for the Lord".

The Israelites worshiped gods they were not supposed to worship. However, not all did.

This means God cannot create nor destroy.

Please explain.

I'm more interested when that complicated machine breaks down as it often does.

Many have, I'm sure.

There is no way to establish this. If God lived longer than even a single human generation, He could claim to be eternal and it's unlikely humans would be able to counter it. The only way to prove eternity is to somehow show there is no such thing as a beginning or end, but as we have both, we will never be able to prove it even exists.

I can't prove a lot of things. Nor does science.

As Darwin didn't know about genes yet and we can do genetic comparisons all day long if we want to, it's not the same. Just as a paternity test can prove familial relationships, DNA testing can show us which of us species are related more closely than others.

A mechanic can pull down a V8 engine, and take it apart down to the tiniest part. He can probably tell you all the parts that are closely related too, but I am quite sure he's not going to tell you that one engine came from another.
He might tell you how similar they are.

So you believe the time when King Josiah tells someone to go find a law book, and one just "happens" to be found, which is one book out of the entire OT, which has to mean everything else was made up during his reign at the earliest? Because lots of times the bible claims "people did not know the Lord", which should be impossible if the texts were sitting right there.

Deuteronomy 31:24-26
24 As soon as Moses had completed writing the words of this Law in a book in their entirety, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, saying: 26 “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, and it will serve as a witness there against you.

Please explain how animals crossed entire oceans to get to continents even God doesn't know about because He never mentions them.

Boat.

And like my parents, I realized they were hypocritical narcissistic sociopaths who don't know nearly as much as they thought they did.

...and you were satisfied with your realization right? ...but you didn't think everyone should have the same realization as you did.

 

[viole]

You'll probably make the same argument about the windpipe and swallow-pipe right?

Both are good design. However, my argument is not about whether the design is liked or disliked
Why do you think those arguments are somehow reasonable arguments for this topic?.

It always beats me, so perhaps you can explain, if you don't mind.


If you knew what you say we know, there would right now be no arguments or debates about it, now would there. Paleontologists often claim that fossils tell us something. But fossils, by themselves, tell us nothing; not even that they are fossils.
So it seems we are all one big ignorant bunch.
Unless of course you have the "ace up your sleeve", and will now pull it out and show me how mutations were guided by nature selection, to evolve whole new organisms.
I like surprises, so surprise me.

By the way, what I presented is an undeniable fact, not an ideology. Care to try disproving it?

@leibowde84, my argument is not about complexity.

FYI: I do nor debate youtube videos. For obvious reasons. You find all sort of stuff on the internet, including videos about the flatness of the earth. So, you will have to tell me with your words.

I propose to start small, human evolution for instance, and then proceed. I know creationists like to create confusion by making dozens of claims at the same time to make it difficult to reply, or by writing monster posts full of videos, but we need ro focus. I would probably do the same in their position.

If I understood you correctly, we are great apes, but you do not believe that we have a common ancestor with the other great apes.

Why is that? Look how similar we are. Do you see signs of irreducible complexity that would make the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with chimps, impossible?

Ciao

- viole