• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A simple case for intelligent design

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Since the Biblical notion of 'kind' is nonsense, this question has no real answer. Species change over time, acquiring new characteristics, but do so within the range of variance in the (shifting) population at each time.

But, as has been pointed out, vertebrates will continue to produce vertebrates, apes will continue to produce apes (including humans), etc.
That’s what everybody keeps claiming, but E. coli remain E. coli no matter how they try to change them. Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how they try to change them. Dogs remain dogs no matter how many variations they go through and never change species. Every single fossil in the fossil record for any creature remains the same across millions of years.

Their is no evidence whatsoever that speciation even exists except when they incorrectly classify things. Like finches mating right in front of their noses.....

Apes will never produce humans and never did. Fish never produce amphibians and never did.

All you or anyone has ever observed is fish producing fish, amphibians producing amphibians, apes producing apes, humans producing humans, deer producing deer, and the list goes on for every single creature in existence. The only connection is those “missing” common ancestors at every split on every single tree. And the magic words “millions of years” despite millions of years already having passed and nothing we see is evolving....

Faith stronger than mine for sure....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
And what is this nonsense I hear about the absolute speed of light in a Relative universe?????

It is relative. Nothing is absolute. They simply treat it as absolute because they treat this frame as an absolute frame.

Please do not listen to those that treat this frame as an absolute frame, while proclaiming in the next breath that everything is relative and no absolute frames exist. They simply fail to understand why light always travels at c regardless of velocity and why it can never be attained. They are treating this frame as an absolute frame when they speak of its impossibility or of constants. Such things do not exist in a relative universe. Everything is relative to each frame and it’s energy content due to its velocity through space.

Because c is the limit of our measuring devices proportionally to the energy this system contains. People simply do not understand why light travels at c regardless of your velocity. First get rid of the pseudoscience. The reason we can not attain the speed of light has nothing to do with mass, nor anything at all to do with energy requirements for acceleration. To someone traveling at 1/2 of c to us, it would take them no more energy to continue to accelerate than it took them to start accelerating. To them nothing has changed, you must stop thinking of this frame as an absolute frame. To them it is your clocks and rulers that have changed. It is you that requires more energy to accelerate, your mass that has changed. Ask yourself has your mass changed, or do you require more energy to accelerate because they say it has? Again, they see nothing different than before they began accelerating. Everything is relative to the velocity of a system through space and it's current energy content. Our measuring devices are simply unable to measure anything above the speed of c. In analogy, your speedometer is maxed out and unable to give you any readings above its upper limit.

Now I’ll attempt to explain in simple terms why light always appears to travel at c.

Look at the speedometer on your car. Imagine that 100 mph is the speed of light and the maximum it can give readings. Accelerate to 50 mph. As you begin to accelerate your division mark spacing (clocks and rulers) begin to change proportionally to the energy added on the quantum level from your change in velocity. Now this is important, you must now rotate the dial so that your zero point follows the needle.

Notice the consequences. 100 mph is still 100 mph and can not be reached. Also your velocity through space now reads as zero, not 50 mph, just as it does right now despite our traveling at an unknown velocity through space.

Light travels at c regardless of ones velocity because our zero points for our measuring devices also change proportionally to energy along with our measuring devices. This change in zero points compensates exactly for our change in velocity and c will always calculate to c regardless of our true velocity through space.

Regardless of what your true velocity through space may be, your devices will say you are stationary. There is no traveling at 1/2 of c, 99.9% of c, or any number for yourself. You will at all times according to your own clocks and rulers be stationary. Your zero points resetting will compensate for your change in velocity and light will calculate to c regardless if you are now traveling at what once would have been c to you.

People simply have no understanding of why light calculates to c regardless of ones velocity, to most it is simply a magical speed limit that can not be reached. At no other time but right now at this exact velocity will the same distance and time ever be calculated for the speed of light. This is not to say others will not still call their clock ticks of a different duration seconds, nor their rulers of different lengths meters, but at no other velocity will they ever be the same. The shift of our zero points combined with these new measurements is why it will always calculate to c and can never be obtained.

We simply never notice the relative changes to our zero points nor our clocks and rulers and we never will because we call different duration ticks of time seconds and different length rulers meters. All clocks and rulers are equally accurate in every frame because our zero points have shifted proportionally to energy along with those clocks and rulers.

Hence Einstein telling us that only in frames moving in relative motion (the same approximate velocity) are the laws of physics the same. And that in frames not traveling with the same approximate velocity are the laws of physics different. They are different because they no longer share the same zero points or units of measurement.

Understand there is no such thing as a constant, everything is relative to the energy a system contains due to its velocity through space. The measurements nor zero points are not the same, they are proportional to energy. That we call two different ticks of time the same thing or two different lengths rulers the same does not mean they are the same. We are simply unable to tell when our own measuring devices change, even if we know they do. So most confuse proportional as being the same, when it is anything but.

Don't be confused by the magical mumbo jumbo of its impossibility. They themselves are simply confused and don't understand why light always travels at c regardless of ones velocity. They continue to think that a second in the accelerated frame is of the same duration as a second to us. Confusing two different times as being the same because they don't understand that our zero points for every measurement also shift as well. And hence a clock tick of a longer duration can calculate the same result as a clock tick of a shorter duration, as well as longer and shorter rulers. Zero points have shifted compensating for the change in velocity. With every change in velocity, you will calculate new times and distances for light, but since you will still call these new times seconds, and these new distances meters, you will never even realize your measuring devices or your zero points have changed. You will always think everything has remained the same and will argue against anyone that tells you they have changed and be convinced they are wrong. Like the twin who believed it was the stationary twins clocks which changed, believing his remained the same until he returned to the stationary frame and reality came crashing down. We simply have no stationary frame to return to, to make our error in thought of the consistency of time clear to us. Not that we would know a stationary frame even if it existed, because to all our measuring devices we are stationary and it is everything else that is in motion. Which is why every device we have reads as stationary, despite our understanding we are anything but…..

We could be traveling at faster than c and we would never even know it. Zero points shift along with changes to clocks and rulers. Please understand that regardless of your actual velocity in space, all your devices will say you are stationary because your zero points have shifted.

Understand that once in motion you can no longer perceive other frames correctly, unless they are set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you. This is important, pay close attention to what they never tell you. The twin in motion could perceive nothing correctly. He believed he was stationary, when he wasn’t. He believed his clocks did not change, when they did. He believed the stationary frame was in motion, when it wasn’t. And he believed the stationary frames clocks slowed, when they didn’t. He could not get one single observation correct because of his motion. Think about that, then think about what they are telling you, and the fact we are in motion just as was the twin…….. and just like the twin while in motion, they still have the same mindset he did. Despite all their claims, they continue to treat this frame as an absolute frame. Nothing is absolute. Not the duration of a second, not the length of a meter, and not the zero points from which all measurement begins. Einstein was correct about one thing, it is all relative, even if he then treated this frame as absolute.

The person traveling at 1/2 of c relative to you thinks you require more energy to accelerate. But you don’t. I will repeat, once in motion you can not perceive other frames correctly, unless that frame is set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you. Just ask the twin who could not get one single observation correct….

The simple fact is you can never attain the speed of light as long as you continue to use your own measuring devices which will continue to change from energy added from acceleration, along with the zero points for those devices. You will continue to call different duration ticks of time seconds, and different length rulers meters, so will never even notice those changes. And most importantly, no matter how fast you are actually traveling through space, your devices will say you are stationary. Every device we have tells us we are stationary, despite the fact we know we are moving through space at an unknown velocity. Give up the pseudoscience of mass and infinite energy, these are irrelevant in a relative universe where everything is relative to ones velocity through space. The duration of time one calls a second, the length of a rod one calls a meter, and the zero points from which all measurements begin. They all change relative to the energy content of each frame due to its motion.

This is not an absolute frame, what we measure as c will change for every other frame. Each frame will have its own c, based upon its zero points due to the energy that frame contains because of its velocity.

So yes, it is possible to travel at c, just never using your own clocks and rulers, and so it is also impossible by the very nature of our measuring devices changing along with our zero points. It’s a catch 22.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I made a truthful accusation against any that feel it might apply to them, but no one in particular. Did you somehow feel it was directed at you? That’s the way with truth, it cuts to the bone to any that hear it regardless if addressed to them or not.

This is like your false claims of evolution. I certainly do not believe you are lying when you claim you have proof, just flat out wrong......

Lies don’t offend, truth does. Which is why I am not offended when you try your sad little attempts at character assassination, because it simply tells me the truth cut deep and it is your last ditch effort to save your ego.....
No, it was a false accusation that you can't justify. That is why we know that you broke the Ninth Commandment.

And please, I can support my claims about evolution. You can't support your claims against it. All you have are old failed and refuted arguments. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an informed honest creationist. A creationist may be honest, though it is all but impossible to remain a creationist and be honest if one debates the topic. And there are unending examples of dishonest creationists. Most creationists are a combination of both.

Why not try to learn what evolution is so that you can properly debate against it?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sure he was.......

And yet as always I see just claims with no citations in support. But that’s standard for an evolutionist...
What do you need? I can provide it? There is of course the bad science in the Bible that you have to be aware of. There are the mythical books of the Bible like Genesis and Exodus. There are the countless self contradictions in the Bible. And there is the poor morality of the Bible. What would you like to learn about first?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Their is no evidence whatsoever that speciation even exists except when they incorrectly classify things. Like finches mating right in front of their noses.....

There are numerous examples.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Apes will never produce humans and never did. Fish never produce amphibians and never did.

This is not speciation leading me to conclude you have no idea what you are talking about

All you or anyone has ever observed is fish producing fish, amphibians producing amphibians, apes producing apes, humans producing humans, deer producing deer, and the list goes on for every single creature in existence.

Further evidence of your ignorance as you are using conflating various taxonomy as the same.


The only connection is those “missing” common ancestors at every split on every single tree. And the magic words “millions of years” despite millions of years already having passed and nothing we see is evolving....

We have been actually observing and recording what we see only for a few millennia most which evolution as a theory never existed. Ergo no serious research on the subject until a few centuries ago.

Faith stronger than mine for sure....

Numerous independent studies, sources of evidence, etc, compared a collection of books written by a few individuals largely in regional isolation ignorant of what was happening 50 miles, if not less, away from them.

Sure......
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who’s death and resurrection proved who he was and so was hushed up.

And those thousands of people willingly suffered torture and death instead of renouncing their faith..... BECAUSE they had witnessed his death, resurrection and miracles.

You got the testimony of thousands of eye witnesses that willingly gave their lives in testimony of the things they saw. A stronger testimony than some scribe writing something in a scroll that would be questioned someday by those looking for any excuse to deny the truth.

But you can’t erase those thousands that went to their deaths willingly no matter how much you might wish they hadn’t in their testimony of the reality....
Oh my, so much nonsense. There is no evidence of "thousands of people" that were tortured that could have been released if they denied their faith. There are only stories that have grown over the years. And since the vast majority of those that were supposedly tortured could not have any personal knowledge of Jesus, but had to rely on myths passed down even if that happened it would not be proof of anything.

Instead of writing Gish Gallops why not try bringing up your claims one at a time and see if they have any credibility at all? You know that individually all of your claims fail. That is why you need to rely on improper debate techniques.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Who’s death and resurrection proved who he was and so was hushed up.
The evidence-equivalent of "the dog ate my homework".

And those thousands of people willingly suffered torture and death instead of renouncing their faith..... BECAUSE they had witnessed his death, resurrection and miracles.
People from all kinds of religions around the world have sacrificed themselves, been tortured and killed (including by Christians) for their faith. It means nothing other than that they believed it very strongly.

You got the testimony of thousands of eye witnesses that willingly gave their lives in testimony of the things they saw. A stronger testimony than some scribe writing something in a scroll that would be questioned someday by those looking for any excuse to deny the truth.
This is just flat-out not true. We don't even have a single eyewitness account of Jesus' life or beliefs. At best we have a handful of second and third-hand accounts.

But you can’t erase those thousands that went to their deaths willingly no matter how much you might wish they hadn’t in their testimony of the reality....
Just like you can't erase the millions of non-Christians who willingly went to their death for their beliefs.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That’s what everybody keeps claiming, but E. coli remain E. coli no matter how they try to change them. Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how they try to change them. Dogs remain dogs no matter how many variations they go through and never change species.
Not only is this displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, it's also observably false.

Firstly, dogs remaining dogs isn't really an issue with evolution, because evolution doesn't predict that things will produce "other things than what they are". All that evolution requires and predicts is that "all things reproduce VARIATIONS of what they are". In other words, dogs do remain dogs, but produce variations of dogs. Just as early mammals produced variations of mammals and early eukaryotes produce variations of eukaryotes.

Secondly, speciation has been directly observed multiple times.

Every single fossil in the fossil record for any creature remains the same across millions of years.
This is just flat-out wrong. Taken as a whole, the fossil record shows clear change over time. The only way to make sense of the fossil record is like this:

EITHER

1) All life shares common ancestry as a result of minute changes over generations (directly observed) adding up to lead to speciation (directly observed) through a process of mutation (directly observed) and natural selection (directly observed) over millions of years.

OR

2) Every living population that has ever existed, with a few exceptions, came into existence spontaneously and for no reason, and the majority of said populations over time disappeared or were erased from existence suddenly and for no reason before another population - that, by sheer coincidence, bears remarkable similarities to the previous population - appears fully formed out of nowhere for no reason before subsequently also going extinct suddenly for no reason and another population - yet again bearing similarities, purely coincidentally - appeared for no reason in its place, and that this exact process happened thousands (if not millions) of times over and over again for countless populations of animals throughout the earth's existence.

To say that the fossil record doesn't support evolution is to tacitly assert that you believe in option 2.

Their is no evidence whatsoever that speciation even exists except when they incorrectly classify things. Like finches mating right in front of their noses.....
How do you qualify whether something is correctly or incorrectly classified? Do you know what the barrier between "species" is?

Apes will never produce humans and never did.
Humans are apes, so apes produce humans all the time.

Fish never produce amphibians and never did.
This is a bit different because "fish" is not a taxonomic group in the same way that amphibians or vertebrates are - they are paraphyletic. It is, however, true that fish are vertebrates that share common ancestry with amphibians, and that the ancestors of amphibians were certainly some form of fish.


All you or anyone has ever observed is fish producing fish, amphibians producing amphibians, apes producing apes, humans producing humans, deer producing deer, and the list goes on for every single creature in existence. The only connection is those “missing” common ancestors at every split on every single tree. And the magic words “millions of years” despite millions of years already having passed and nothing we see is evolving....

Faith stronger than mine for sure....
See above.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
There is no evolution of ANY type. God made two canine types, and from there we get over 100 breeds. Not separate species..... they won’t even classify them correctly under their own classification system as subspecies, because doing so would show the error in other classifications....

True--and had you heard the "wolves become dogs" has also been shown a myth?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I said that kind is equivalent to a "clade" in my opinion. But they aren't quite the same, as I pointed out, because "kind" assumes that there are 2 original kinds that we should be able to identify somewhere. A clade actually includes all of a creature's ancestors, but creationists don't accept that.

But you're the one claiming kinds. Science doesn't use that term. Can you define it, or not?

I actually think that if there is a God, it would be intelligent enough to have designed evolution as it is. The problem is that some creationists apparently don't think their God is that intelligent.

I believe in special Creation, therefore, no clades possible.

My God is so intelligent, He laughs in Heaven while men make up endless just-so evolution stories to fight His Creation and His Chosen.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe in special Creation, therefore, no clades possible.

My God is so intelligent, He laughs in Heaven while men make up endless just-so evolution stories to fight His Creation and His Chosen.
You have it backwards as usual. You are the one with "just so stories". Do you even understand what that phrase means?

Also you believe in a lying god.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
No, it was a false accusation that you can't justify. That is why we know that you broke the Ninth Commandment.

And please, I can support my claims about evolution. You can't support your claims against it. All you have are old failed and refuted arguments. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as an informed honest creationist. A creationist may be honest, though it is all but impossible to remain a creationist and be honest if one debates the topic. And there are unending examples of dishonest creationists. Most creationists are a combination of both.

Why not try to learn what evolution is so that you can properly debate against it?
You can’t support any of them.

What are you going to do, show me fossils that remain the same across millions of years then claim “missing common ancestors” split to produce new types???

What are you going to do, show me E. coli that remained E. coli no matter how hard they tried to change them???

What are you going to do, show me fruit flies that remain fruit flies no matter how they try to change them???

What are you going to do, show me comparisons between two different genomes where they randomly matched any parts that fit with an algorithm and claim shared ancestory? While you would be laughed out of any doctors office or courtroom by trying to claim relation between humans or any other two animals using that same method....

All you got are claims that have nothing to do with reality. I know it and you know it, which is why you will continue to do nothing but make claims.....
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Do you agree that if they were not designed but are anything like us, more than 99% of them seek their creator?

How can you believe that such an advanced civilization would still believe in creators?

And what do you mean with “us”? A small minority of Christian and Muslim creationists who are intellectually completely irrelevant? Well, at least in Europe.

So, we do not need to postulate mega advanced civilizations to see that creators are not necessary to explain life, including us. You just need to visit Europe.

Therefore, Don’t count me in in your “us”, please. Your “us” is not my “us”.

Ciao

- viole
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I don’t know is it? Are you declaring your belief in the commandments?
Not at all - no thinking person does, seeing as how more than half are just religious crap, and the rest are mere common sense/common courtesy/common decency issues.
After all, animals don’t commit murder when they kill another animal......
And yet this deity of yours ORDERS the slaughter of the unborn when it suits it.

Worship away!
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
That’s what everybody keeps claiming, but E. coli remain E. coli no matter how they try to change them. Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how they try to change them. Dogs remain dogs no matter how many variations they go through and never change species. Every single fossil in the fossil record for any creature remains the same across millions of years.

Their is no evidence whatsoever that speciation even exists except when they incorrectly classify things. Like finches mating right in front of their noses.....

Apes will never produce humans and never did. Fish never produce amphibians and never did.

All you or anyone has ever observed is fish producing fish, amphibians producing amphibians, apes producing apes, humans producing humans, deer producing deer, and the list goes on for every single creature in existence. The only connection is those “missing” common ancestors at every split on every single tree. And the magic words “millions of years” despite millions of years already having passed and nothing we see is evolving....

Faith stronger than mine for sure....
I'm curious about something.....

Obviously the world's scientific community has a completely different view than what you expressed above. For over a century now, scientists from all walks of religious belief have generally agreed that, 1) populations evolve; 2) new traits, genetic sequences, and species arise via evolution; and 3) life on earth shares a common ancestry.

How do you account for that? Are they all just really, really bad at their jobs? Are they part of the largest conspiracy in history? Are they under some magic spell?
 
Top