Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
I could go on all day with this list.
Click to expand...
Pattylt said:
Our sinuses make no sense unless we originally walked on all fours!
Click to expand...
Freddy said:
The current design should be held up as an example of what not to do.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
You could post so many examples of what we are capable of doing. And would they be examples of us overcoming our limitations?

Your piccie shows one of the Apollo missions. As if that is an example of us being the best we can. But I’m writing this on a tablet that is way more powerful than the computers they had on any of tbe moon missions. Which is the point I was making.

I’m sorry you missed it.
 
Freddy said:
You could post so many examples of what we are capable of doing. And would they be examples of us overcoming our limitations?
Click to expand...
No, they would be examples of the amazing capabilities of the human design so far. Stay tuned.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Of course incremental changes will get us better functioning robots. But both you and I know, this can only happen with the help of intelligent design.
Click to expand...
No, I’m afraid not. Read Stanislaw Lem’s ‘The Invincible’ for an example.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
You could post so many examples of what we are capable of doing. And would they be examples of us overcoming our limitations?
Click to expand...
No, they would be examples of the amazing capabilities of the human design so far. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Yeah…Porky the Pig didn’t designed the internal combustion engine. 😄
 
rossum said:
Gustave Eiffel was an intelligent designer, he designed a tower in Paris. He was not eternal. There is no requirement that an intelligent designer is eternal.

Where is your evidence to support your claim?
Click to expand...
Intelligent designers don’t have to be eternal. One is though, the ultimate designer.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Of course incremental changes will get us better functioning robots. But both you and I know, this can only happen with the help of intelligent design. Sounds even more familiar?
Click to expand...
The cause being greater than the effect.
 
buffalo said:
Intelligent designers don’t have to be eternal. One is though, the ultimate designer.
Click to expand...
Then you are telling us that something as complex as intelligence does not require design. Your ultimate intelligent designer was not designed. Hence complex intelligence does not require design.

Given that something as complex as intelligence does not require design, then what is your justification in asserting that complex things must be designed? You yourself have just given an example of a very complex entity that did not require design.
 
buffalo said:
Work backwards tweaking and you arrive at Adam and Eve with the preternatural gifts of freedom of sickness and bodily immortality.
Click to expand...
So, where can we see the DNA sequences for Adam and Eve? Failing that, where are the remnants of Adam and Eve’s special DNA in, say, Ötzi’s DNA?
 
buffalo said:
The cause being greater than the effect.
Click to expand...
An acorn is “greater” than an oak tree? A single fertilized egg cell is “greater” than an entire human body containing trillions of cells?

I have to disagree here.
 
rossum said:
an example of a very complex entity that did not require design.
Click to expand...
Everything depends on the first cause and is contingent as well as the actualities it causes in other things. God is pure act and intelligent. Creative reason is the intelligent cause of everything and the uniiverse being created is intelligible and has purpose. That is the main reason science can exist.

The intellignet design we see flows from God Himself.
 
rossum said:
An acorn is “greater” than an oak tree? A single fertilized egg cell is “greater” than an entire human body containing trillions of cells?

I have to disagree here.
Click to expand...
What caused the acorn?
 
rossum said:
I am glad you agree that the ID contention that complexity requires design is false. Complex things exist that were not designed.

The whole ides of ID is based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
Huh? God created it all.

Functional complex specified requires design and is what ID is all about.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Eric_Hyom:
Of course incremental changes will get us better functioning robots. But both you and I know, this can only happen with the help of intelligent design.
Click to expand...
No, I’m afraid not. Read Stanislaw Lem’s ‘The Invincible’ for an example.
Click to expand...
Never heard of it, but a Google search describes it as a work of science fiction. Now I am confused.
 
buffalo said:
Functional complex specified requires design and is what ID is all about.
Click to expand...
Is God functional? Yes, He can function.

Is God complex? Yes, He is omniscient, so knows all information possible.

Is God specified? Yes, He is specified in the Bible.

As I said, the Intelligent Designer, by its very existence refutes the basic claim of ID. An undesigned complex entity exists.
 
buffalo said:
Keep going…
Click to expand...
The first acorn was caused by a not-quite-oak tree that was one mutation away from being an oak tree. An acorn with that mutation from that not-quite-oak tree grew into an oak tree. The acorn came before the tree.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Never heard of it, but a Google search describes it as a work of science fiction. Now I am confused.
Click to expand...
Self-replicating robots on a planet are competing for resources. Their self-replication is imperfect. When you have a situation of imperfect replication with resource constraints you get…

Oh yes, the robots win; the humans lose.

If you want to use a theological text to guide your approach to science, then I can use a science-fiction text as an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top