Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[SkepticThinker]

Lol., who are these so-called "experts"? Does the government have experts? Expert idiots for sure!

Um, people educated in the proper fields. People who know what they're talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, there are plenty of out-of-place fossils. They are conveniently thought to have eroded out of an old formation and be redeposited in a younger formation.

Clam kinds of fossils occur all throughout Earth’s sedimentary layers, frequently mixed with dinosaurs, and the fossil clams look like today’s clams.

Of course, the real question is how the layers were really deposited. And if the time frames are even close to what is claimed.

You follow Kent Hovind, don't you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You follow Kent Hovind, don't you?

Nope. Do you have anything to add or are you just another insulter?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope. Do you have anything to add or are you just another insulter?

You happen to share a lot of the same ideas and misunderstandings of evolution that Ken Hovind does, hence my question.

 

[Bear Wild]

No, you missed the point.

Animals are biological organisms that reproduce offspring. Computers are not biological organisms and do not produce offspring. So your analogy fell apart.

P.S. The hallmark of design is not complexity. It's simplicity.

Why is this so hard for them to understand? It seems that they cannot differentiate the living independent self reproducing organism from and object that can sit around for a million years and never create a new one like itself. They can only understand something that is made by a human since the can understand the actual steps involved but are so overwhelmed by the complexity of the living organism that their mind shuts down and automatically differs to the nonliving man made object.

 

[Bear Wild]

Oh, you have seen molecules to men evolution?

This statement is so classic creationist melodrama and demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of evolution. You have defined your ignorance on the subject.

The theory of evolution clearly explains how humans evolved and it is not molecules directly changing into men. That would be a creationist idea - humans created from clay. Only problem is that humans are organic and clay is not but who cares about logic, evidence, reason when you have fictional stories you can believe in.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is this so hard for them to understand? It seems that they cannot differentiate the living independent self reproducing organism from and object that can sit around for a million years and never create a new one like itself. They can only understand something that is made by a human since the can understand the actual steps involved but are so overwhelmed by the complexity of the living organism that their mind shuts down and automatically differs to the nonliving man made object.

I guess because they believe that a creator created everything "as is,"
I guess they look at human creations like computers and cars and then just extend what they know about those things to the Creator they believe in and "his" supposed creation and imagine them to be the same?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why is this so hard for them to understand? It seems that they cannot differentiate the living independent self reproducing organism from and object that can sit around for a million years and never create a new one like itself. They can only understand something that is made by a human since the can understand the actual steps involved but are so overwhelmed by the complexity of the living organism that their mind shuts down and automatically differs to the nonliving man made object.

The point is that the complexity necessitates a creator. A system that is obviously programmed whether it's alive or not, did not just evolve by accident.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The theory of evolution clearly explains how humans evolved and it is not molecules directly changing into men

Duh. I never said it was...

 

[Bear Wild]

Duh. I never said it was...

Ah then what were you trying to say?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point is that the complexity necessitates a creator.

Says who? Can you demonstrate that?
How complex is your creator?

A system that is obviously programmed whether it's alive or not, did not just evolve by accident.

Says who? When did you demonstrate that "a system" is "obviously programmed?"

 

[Bear Wild]

The point is that the complexity necessitates a creator. A system that is obviously programmed whether it's alive or not, did not just evolve by accident.

We have ample evidence that complexity in fact does not need a creator. The complex regulatory genes can create complex down stream changes without the need of a creator to change. We see these complex changes in nature and with breeding programs. Explaining how a creator visits all of the life on earth and changes its genetics to cause the changes we see in life (there is clear evidence that life has changed over time) has no evidence what so ever and there are two problems with that thinking

1. There is no explanation how a creator would actually visit so many life forms and actually change their DNA

2. If a creator could do that then serious moral issues arise about this creator. Why, if a creator can change the dna, would that creator not fix cancer genes and correct inheritable disorders that create suffering - unless that creator likes to watch suffering.

 

[metis]

The point is that the complexity necessitates a creator. A system that is obviously programmed whether it's alive or not, did not just evolve by accident.

Even though I am a theist, the above technically is untrue, and the reason is that the laws of physics posit that particles large and small are always in contact with other particles, thus reactions and new combinations will occur.

Now, a question may be "Who or what made the 'laws of physics?'", but that's a non-sequitur as well because all objects have characteristics. Thus, the real question should be whether there was a Creator{s), and the answer to that is objectively unknown-- but opinions are nevertheless "kosher".

 

[Bear Wild]

I guess because they believe that a creator created everything "as is,"
I guess they look at human creations like computers and cars and then just extend what they know about those things to the Creator they believe in and "his" supposed creation and imagine them to be the same?

They also have no way to explain how this creator is actively changing the life forms on earth. Does this creator visit all life forms every day with a genetic tool kit making adjustments or just a once every 100 year tune up for desired changed.

Personally most of the creationist thinkers seem to want to feel like god themselves thus capture on the ancient writing god make them in his image and they are therefore god like and can create things just like god can.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We have ample evidence that complexity in fact does not need a creator. The complex regulatory genes can create complex down stream changes without the need of a creator to change. We see these complex changes in nature and with breeding programs. Explaining how a creator visits all of the life on earth and changes its genetics to cause the changes we see in life (there is clear evidence that life has changed over time) has no evidence what so ever and there are two problems with that thinking

Lol, none of which explains why these systems work in the first place. Hence, the need for a designer. Why does the evolution crowd always make up this silly scenario where God visits and interferes? He is never not involved. He never takes his hands of his creation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

ays who? When did you demonstrate that "a system" is "obviously programmed?"

You DNA made of machines within machines within machines. We can't even completely understand it. But of course it all just happened by accident...

 

[SkepticThinker]

You DNA made of machines within machines within machines. We can't even completely understand it. But of course it all just happened by accident...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. Can you write it in a different way?

There are no machines in DNA. Scientists understand how DNA works.

I don't know why you're going on about accidents. Natural selection isn't accidental in the sense that you're using the word.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, none of which explains why these systems work in the first place. Hence, the need for a designer. Why does the evolution crowd always make up this silly scenario where God visits and interferes? He is never not involved. He never takes his hands of his creation.

Wait, so you think that if you don't understand how something works, it must have been created by someone? How does that logic work?

 

[McBell]

Lol, none of which explains why these systems work in the first place. Hence, the need for a designer. Why does the evolution crowd always make up this silly scenario where God visits and interferes? He is never not involved. He never takes his hands of his creation.

Your "god of the gaps" campaign is at serious risk of getting eliminated entirely as we the humans learn more about the reality we reside in.

 

[McBell]

Wait, so you think that if you don't understand how something works, it must have been created by someone? How does that logic work?

It is simply the "god of the gaps" theology.
The more gaps, the bigger the god.

Which is what I suspect is the leading cause of willful ignorance that is so prolific amongst theists.