You are right, but I was using it specifically as a selling point for evolution. Nothing like a willing acceptance of the suggestion by the masses....heaven knows it keeps the wheels of commerce turning.
-
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!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
You are right, but I was using it specifically as a selling point for evolution. Nothing like a willing acceptance of the suggestion by the masses....heaven knows it keeps the wheels of commerce turning.
You are right, but I was using it specifically as a selling point for evolution. Nothing like a willing acceptance of the suggestion by the masses....heaven knows it keeps the wheels of commerce turning.
Not just commerce.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Yes, but what if that raindrop was unique from all other raindrops. What if it was discovered that that particular raindrop had qualities possessed by no other raindrop, and it just so happened that this particular unique raindrop was the one that hit the bulls-eye?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that we must deny the existence of atoms because we can't see them? What does science "know" as opposed to "suggest" about atoms?
"The tiniest speck that can be seen under an ordinary microscope is composed of more than ten billion atoms! Yet, in 1897 it was discovered that the atom has tiny orbiting particles called electrons. In time, the nucleus of the atom, around which the electrons orbit, was found to consist of larger particles—neutrons and protons. The 88 different kinds of atoms, or elements, that occur naturally on earth are basically the same size, but they vary in weight because each has a progressively larger number of these three basic particles.
The electrons—in the case of the hydrogen atom, one single electron—whirl through space around the atom’s nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second, thus providing shape to the atom and causing it to behave as if it were solid. It would take nearly 1,840 electrons to equal the mass of a proton or a neutron. Both the proton and the neutron are about 100,000 times smaller than the entire atom itself!
To get some idea of how empty an atom is, try to visualize the nucleus of a hydrogen atom in relation to the atom’s orbiting electron. If that nucleus, consisting of a single proton, were the size of a tennis ball, its orbiting electron would be about two miles [3 km] away!
A report on the centennial celebrations of the discovery of the electron commented: “Few think twice about celebrating something no one has seen, which has no discernible size and yet has a measurable weight, an electric charge—and spins like a top......Today no one questions the idea that things we can never see do exist.” (Excerpt 2000 Awake!)
Look at that! Not one "suggestion" to be seen.
"In the physical world, precise timing can be seen on a microscopic as well as on a macroscopic scale. Atoms vibrate at consistent rates. International time-standard clocks regulated by atomic vibrations are accurate to 1 second in 80 million years."
Atoms are amazing!
Or those who think "natural selection" is the blanket answer to all the impossible questions. If it's good enough for you, be my guest...it isn't good enough for me. If God created, then he created the fully formed creature just as he said he did. I see what he created with my own eyes and I know none of it was the product of accidental chance mutations over millions of undocumented years. I do not believe that the Creator began some process and then stood back and watched it evolve.
You can if you want to.
That is a whole other thread LnM
Here are some more of those 'naturally selected' creations who just happened to have evolved to look like birds, monkeys, babies or even Mick Jagger's lips.....all because the pollinators had preferences that they somehow conveyed to the plants.....apparently.
The more you see, the sillier it gets.
No intelligence directed any of this.....?
The more you see, the sillier it gets.
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
Which is more complex: the worlds fastest super-computer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an Earthworm?
Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.
1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?
2. What would you think of me if I firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the super computer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?
Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.
1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?
2. What would you think of me if I firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the super computer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?
The more you see, the sillier it gets.No intelligence directed any of this.....?
I know we've had this conversation before, but the argument that God is the designer of life would seem to run into at least some questions around how good a designer he is, or how benevolent he is, based on the nature of some of the creatures he apparently designed.
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
Great, so you understand how illogical and unscientific the mechanisms for evolution is.
Don't see how that follows. But I'll happily defend your right to make such leaps of faith.
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
Sure I have faith, I also have common sense and that thing called logical reasoning.Don't see how that follows. But I'll happily defend your right to make such leaps of faith.
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
You weren't born yesterday, kiddo. Re-read the discussion we had and you'll get the point.
Oh, I get the point you're trying to make.
That's why I specified 'coherent'.
You put up a question, I answered it honestly, and you decided to ignore my actual answers, and roll with your pre-canned punchline.
It's fine, I really don't care, but don't expect anyone to be convinced by it.
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
If you say you answered it honestly then logic leads to deduce that mindless, random chance isn't really logical at all. So I fail to see where I'm ignoring you and where there is the lack of coherency that you are spouting out of thin air.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How much more complex than all of these things would some Creator god be?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Well, seeing as no one has been able to present anything beyond the concept of a creator god, using the "humans have not made a worm" ""reasoning"" one must conclude that the creator god is the most complex.
No. Not based on my answers it doesn't. My logic and reasoning, as you put it, lead me to examine the information available to me when making a decision. That this doesnt land me in the same place as you can be value-judged all you like, but there's no inconsistency in my approach.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
To be honest, I have no idea what it is you are calling "evolution".
But it sure doesn't sound anything like what scientists call evolution.
- Status