• 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

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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....
You are so wrong on so many levels. Starting with your misunderstanding of evolution. I mean, your claims are some of the oldest creationist canards I've ever seen.
Nobody who understands evolution thinks that anything gives birth to anything other than its own "kind." Dogs don't give birth to cats and if they did, that would be evidence against evolution.
 

SkepticThinker

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.
Yes, that's what I said. So in order to demonstrate that you're right, you'd need to show the two originals of each kind that you say your God created. You won't find that if evolution is an accurate description for the diversity of life on earth.

Your God shouldn't have made it look like organisms evolve over time then, I guess.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.....
Have you ever heard of a paternity test? If so, how do you think they're done?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known 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.
Do you know him so personally that you are aware of what you god thinks and laughs at. And why is he just a male god. Does he not like female goddesses?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Do you know him so personally that you are aware of what you god thinks and laughs at. And why is he just a male god. Does he not like female goddesses?

You are unaware the "He" designation is for a gender-neutral Spirit to be recognized as a male birth?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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

Ad populum. No need to reply from me.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yes, that's what I said. So in order to demonstrate that you're right, you'd need to show the two originals of each kind that you say your God created. You won't find that if evolution is an accurate description for the diversity of life on earth.

Your God shouldn't have made it look like organisms evolve over time then, I guess.

One, I see people disagreeing even now on mitochondrial Eve and so forth, I'd say originals are available and you see the data with certain biases, as do I.

Two, by your logic of "looks", neither should God allow atheists to live happy lives and flourish... for now.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Ad populum. No need to reply from me.

No no. You arbitrarily extended with “us” the opinion of a minority, that has not much more evidence of their case than flat earthers, to the whole human race.

So, I suggest, that next time you say “us”, you make it very clear who you mean.

Ciao

- viole
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Do you know him so personally that you are aware of what you god thinks and laughs at. And why is he just a male god. Does he not like female goddesses?
Interestingly enough, God apparently has the exact same sense of humour that BB does! Isn't that amazing? ;)
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
One, I see people disagreeing even now on mitochondrial Eve and so forth, I'd say originals are available and you see the data with certain biases, as do I.
How is mitochondrial Eve considered an original couple "kind?" How about all the rest of original couple "kinds?"
Two, by your logic of "looks", neither should God allow atheists to live happy lives and flourish... for now.

I'm sorry. ... what?

God doesn't allow or disallow me to do anything. I live my own life.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
You are unaware the "He" designation is for a gender-neutral Spirit to be recognized as a male birth?
I am familiar with the male use as supposed gender-neutral but in the case of the bible we see Adam primary who was used to create Eve (impossible biology) and the dominant figure naming all life (ridiculous secondary to the actual variety of life on earth) followed by Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus representing a purely male dominated culture and the rejection of the gospel of Mary. Clearly there is a male dominant message so it would appear the god of the bible places males above females and of course it was Eve who started the downfall in man. So "He" does not look so gender neutral.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Correction: Still repeating Wikipedia's "error", in which multiple contributors cite over 100 scholarly sources to correct YOUR error.
Wrong again. Your error is that you either did not read or did not understand the article where it pointed out that the evidence for Jesus was definitely substandard. But given enough substandard evidence an idea can still be accepted.

But since we are discussing evidence if you want to rely on that then you should accept the fact of evolution. That you accept Jesus on far less than good evidence only shows that you are being rather inconsistent in your actions. Why accept an idea that is poorly supported and reject a concept that is extremely well supported and is constantly tested?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sorry you feel this way. Pray about it?
It would help if you were able to "think about it". Praying only shows that you cannot honestly think about this problem. It is a way of pretending that you are doing something when you are not.

Let's put "just so stories" on your list of banned terms since you clearly do not understand it. You see "just so stories" are no refutable since the believers, like believers in the myths of the Bible, will change their stories if, and that is a big "if", they ever understand the evidence against their stories. Scientific concepts are testable. That means there are specific tests that can show the concept to be wrong. Creationists are cowards in this regard. They will not give a clear and possible test that would refute their beliefs. It is why by definition they have no scientific evidence for their beliefs.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That humans, error prone, need a Savior?
Nope, no need for a "Savior" to make up for an incompetent God's mistakes. It is ironic that you cannot see that the Adam and Eve myth paints God as an incompetent God that screwed up his creation and then blamed his product for that error. The story needs no science to refute it. It is logically inconsistent.
 
Top