• 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!

Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Amazing macro-photography of individual snowflakes [10 Pictures]

Please take a look at these amazing photographs. Do you see design in these beautifully crafted snowflakes?

No two are alike and there is no way to appreciate them with the naked eye. There is only this very special kind of photography that allows us to see what amazing things the Creator has made, just because he can.

Blows me away. :)

I suppose if somebody were suffocating in an avalanche, then he might be thinking about something else than how beautifully crafted each snow flake would appear when viewed close up with special photography. My idea of intelligent design would be moderate temperatures everywhere on Earth so that nobody either freezes to death or dies from heat exhaustion.
 
Last edited:

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
If they were a "true human race," then very much indeed they were mammalian creatures, which means they were animals.

mammal yes.if distinguishing manking from animal-kind is not palatable, then fine. But the fact that fertility of the cross-breeds shows that Neanderthals were of the same "kind" as us.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
mammal yes.if distinguishing manking from animal-kind is not palatable, then fine. But the fact that fertility of the cross-breeds shows that Neanderthals were of the same "kind" as us.
Yes, that is correct. Neanderthal would be in the family hominidae, along with homo sapiens, chimps, gorrilas, bonobos, ourang outans and gibbons. Hominidae are the great apes, the family we belong to.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
Yes, that is correct. Neanderthal would be in the family hominidae, along with homo sapiens, chimps, gorrilas, bonobos, ourang outans and gibbons. Hominidae are the great apes, the family we belong to.

Can humans mate with gorillas and produce fertile young? It might be in the same "family" according to modern reckoning but it would not fit the definition of "kind" as it was evidently used in Genesis 6:20.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
mammal yes.if distinguishing manking from animal-kind is not palatable, then fine. But the fact that fertility of the cross-breeds shows that Neanderthals were of the same "kind" as us.
Mammal, noun: a warm-blooded vertebrate animal of a class that is distinguished by the possession of hair or fur, the secretion of milk by females for the nourishment of the young, and (typically) the birth of live young
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Can humans mate with gorillas and produce fertile young? It might be in the same "family" according to modern reckoning but it would not fit the definition of "kind" as it was evidently used in Genesis 6:20.
You must be a little confused - Genesis does not give a definition for 'kind'. According to however you are using 'kind' are African hunting dogs and Wolves the same kind?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
They explored the reproductive method of this bee and found that many drones mate with a queen in flight, dying in the process. The queen has the amazing ability to store the sperm of the many males, but chooses the male she wants to be impregnated by. The reserve of sperm will last her lifetime and all the young produced will be his. Is this just another ransom accident of nature to keep the gene pool in good condition? How do seemingly intelligent people gloss over such things as if they mean nothing?
If it's so great, and it's a perfect design, then why doesn't all animals have the exact same reproductive system? Why are there such a variation based on genetic differences instead of systematic similarities? Again, if it's so great as you say it is, then why doesn't everyone have the same?

Without humans doing this kind of research, we would never have known that this process took place. There are many other equally amazing mechanisms in nature to ensure the same quality of the gene pool in their species...all by creatures who have no idea why they follow their programmed instincts. Who is the programmer?
Do you know that evolutionary (genetic) algorithms are used today, and now even medication is starting to be developed using evolution. If it doesn't work according to you, then why does it work according to reality? Evolution is true because we know it's true. There's no doubt about it anymore.

You can believe God created evolution for all I care, but I do know for certainty that evolution is true.

It all screams purposeful design...not random chance. When do the "series of fortunate accidents" go beyond what is reasonable and become fairy tales?
Design through random change and selective process does work. It's been used many times and in many different project. So... since it does work, then I don't have to defend it. It's just a fact that it does.

And who's the programmer? Since nature is programming at this moment, through genetic variation and selection, and that it works, I can only say that programmer and program are one and the same. Pantheism.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
Please name some.

"Survival" is a mechanism that is inbuilt in all living things, because it ensures the survival of species not designed to think and plan for the future. There is basically only "fight or flight" in the wild. Other programming must override predatory instincts because many predators will protect their own young whilst killing the young of other species to feed themselves and their cubs. Humans would find this repugnant.

We are unique in our ability to plot a course based entirely on external information and reasoning ability. We alone can contemplate the outcome of any course and make a choice

Art, literature, poetry, theatre, or music have no "survival advantage" whatsoever. It is pure enjoyment because of our uniqueness.
Elephants create art given the opportunity. The arts do have functions to do with communication and social bonding. In some respects they may be side effects of traits that have direct survival advantages. I do not think your statement is accurate.

I have seen dogs solve problems, so I think your human exceptionalism is off the mark.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Please name some.

"Survival" is a mechanism that is inbuilt in all living things, because it ensures the survival of species not designed to think and plan for the future. There is basically only "fight or flight" in the wild. Other programming must override predatory instincts because many predators will protect their own young whilst killing the young of other species to feed themselves and their cubs. Humans would find this repugnant.

We are unique in our ability to plot a course based entirely on external information and reasoning ability. We alone can contemplate the outcome of any course and make a choice based on that.

Art, literature, poetry, theatre, or music have no "survival advantage" whatsoever. It is pure enjoyment because of our uniqueness.

You're just completely out of touch...

Firstly and lastly, on the idea "Survival Mechanisms" and art serving no survival advantage other than enojyment and pure uniqueness.
All of these adaptations for mating serve no purpose in the actual act of daily survival. Often times, those extra colors and feathers are actually hindrances to regular bird activities. The same is true for countless other species.


Second, on the idea that "many predators will protect their own young whilst killing the young of other species to feed themselves and their cubs. Humans would find this repugnant."
See also; BIBLE...


Third, on the idea that only humans are able to plot a course based entirely on external information and reasoning ability...
First Evidence Of Planned Animal Action? Chimp's Stone Throwing At Zoo Visitors Was 'Premeditated' -- ScienceDaily
'Cause what you do if you were caged everyday and people you didn't like would come and stare at you?

See also, crows
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
If it's so great, and it's a perfect design, then why doesn't all animals have the exact same reproductive system? Why are there such a variation based on genetic differences instead of systematic similarities? Again, if it's so great as you say it is, then why doesn't everyone have the same?

On investigating the various reproductive systems in the natural world, I see amazing variety in the way creatures reproduce replicas of themselves. When we look at herding land animals for example, do we see some that appear to be evolving into something different from the other members of their herd? Vast numbers are seen...all the same. The genetics are virtually locked in. Mutations do not, for the most part produce beneficial results, they are usually detrimental to the survival of the animals and defective creatures are at a disadvantage. This is true of all species, on land or in the sea. Yet science wants us to believe that beneficial mutations happen routinely throughout the process of evolution in all species. I don't believe it.

Do you know that evolutionary (genetic) algorithms are used today, and now even medication is starting to be developed using evolution. If it doesn't work according to you, then why does it work according to reality? Evolution is true because we know it's true. There's no doubt about it anymore.

You can believe God created evolution for all I care, but I do know for certainty that evolution is true.

You can believe whatever you wish, but I don't believe that anyone can "prove" that "organic" evolution ever took place.

Who is the mathematician who invented these algorithms? You seem to take so much for granted. Can blind chance produce precise mathematical calculations in order to bring about beneficial change?

The ability for bacteria to mutate because of the intervention of man is a whole other story to things left in their natural state for millions of years. No one disputes adaptation......but adaptation does not support one "kind" becoming a totally unrelated "kind". There are roadblocks in the genes to prevent that from happening.

Design through random change and selective process does work. It's been used many times and in many different project. So... since it does work, then I don't have to defend it. It's just a fact that it does.

Change is clearly demonstrated in superficial areas of the anatomy of many species. But change in color, size or shape does not mean that any creature eventually changes into another "kind" of creature. In the "projects" conducted by science, the changes seen were not changes in the basic genetic construction of the creature. The flies remained flies...the fish remained fish, the plants remained plants. Evolutionists tend to make quantum leaps of faith after that.

Their musings then go into the realms of fantasy rather than established "provable" fact. This is what evolutionists will not admit. It requires as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an intelligent designer.

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution, no matter how clever the claimants consider themselves to be. Supposition is not fact. Educated guessing is not a substitute for actual evidence.

And who's the programmer? Since nature is programming at this moment, through genetic variation and selection, and that it works, I can only say that programmer and program are one and the same. Pantheism.

What is "nature"? Some use the title "Mother" as if "she" somehow replaces the "Father". Nature is the creation....not the creator.

The creation itself declares its incredible designer to be an absolute cteative and mathematical genius.

You are free to disagree.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
The creation itself declares its incredible designer to be an absolute cteative and mathematical genius.
So the intricate and wonderful nature because of its complexity can't have an explanation in itself, as self-existence, because of its complexity, but the intricate and wonderful God with his complexity can? If God can think, then thinking is something that doesn't need to be created, which means our ability to think doesn't have to be created. If God can exist without explanation, then existence doesn't have to have a creator to be explained, and hence our existence and this world's existence doesn't demand an explanation any more than God does. If the genes are "programmed" by a programmer, then who or what programmed the amazing programmer (be it human or God)? The only explanation is to look at how Bruno, Spinoza, and many other pantheists did and how they realized that God, existence, reality, nature, life, us, everything, is one big unit, and that's the true GOD of existence. Any God that you make less than everything might be transcendent, but not immanent, and that makes him/her/it less that a full God.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Elephants create art given the opportunity. The arts do have functions to do with communication and social bonding. In some respects they may be side effects of traits that have direct survival advantages. I do not think your statement is accurate.

And if elephants were not given paintbrushes, paint and a canvas by humans, would they naturally seek to produce art on their own? Would they make the paint, or gather the materials to make their paintbrushes etc?
Have we found ancient caves containing the artworks of elephants....or any creature other than man, for that matter?
What creatures produce "art" that is not a programmed part of their reproduction?

I have seen dogs solve problems, so I think your human exceptionalism is off the mark.

Problem solving is evidence of adaptation. I have seen birds and apes do something similar. Learned behaviors are not proof of anything.

When squirrels gather acorns and store them for the winter, is this something they plan? Do they have a preconceived idea that this is what they are doing and that it will feed them throughout the winter? Or is it purely a programming inbuilt like a computer chip? Multiply that with all the other creatures who do a similar thing.

Who teaches dogs to bury bones? Do they consciously decide that the earth is a natural place to preserve their food?
You guys don't think too deeply about these things apparently. Perhaps you should dig a little deeper?
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
The whole educated world disagrees with you on this.

Evolution is taught as the FACT it is, in every credible university in every civilized country.

LOL....and if you get up on your soap box and keep declaring it...it must be true. :rolleyes:

I consider the Creator to be a better and more informed teacher than any mere human....especially ones who are promoting their own godless agendas.

The whole educated world could very well be wrong! :eek: Shock horror! (1 John 5:19)
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I consider the Creator to be a better and more informed teacher

Creation is outlawed from school children in science classes so we don't ruin their minds with pseudoscience.

The whole educated world could very well be wrong

Learn the definition of fact and come back and debate then.

Evolution is fact, and only some theist denounce it through theistic bias and fanaticism.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
So the intricate and wonderful nature because of its complexity can't have an explanation in itself, as self-existence, because of its complexity, but the intricate and wonderful God with his complexity can?

You treat God as if he is human, with limitations like ours. We are made in his image....he is not in ours.

If God can think, then thinking is something that doesn't need to be created, which means our ability to think doesn't have to be created. If God can exist without explanation, then existence doesn't have to have a creator to be explained, and hence our existence and this world's existence doesn't demand an explanation any more than God does. If the genes are "programmed" by a programmer, then who or what programmed the amazing programmer (be it human or God)?

The Creator is not a creation of anyone or any thing. No finite human can comprehend this infinite being, who has always existed.

He is not answerable to us for his existence or his position as our rightful sovereign. If we do not acknowledge him for who and what he is, he will not acknowledge us. The result of that lack of acknowledgment will mean that he has no use for us. Our existence will be terminated. He gives all humans the opportunity to get to know him, and serve him but he forces no one to do so. We are at the mercy of our own choices in fact.

The only explanation is to look at how Bruno, Spinoza, and many other pantheists did and how they realized that God, existence, reality, nature, life, us, everything, is one big unit, and that's the true GOD of existence. Any God that you make less than everything might be transcendent, but not immanent, and that makes him/her/it less that a full God.

I believe that the Creator explains himself and his agenda very clearly in his written word......but those who want to dismiss him muddy the waters. Since humans are the only ones who communicate with written language, his word is meant for us, whom he assigned as caretakers of all other creatures on this planet. How are we doing, do you think?
 
Top