T
Techno2000
Guest
62 million views, the world is being brainwashed by vagueness.
Last edited:
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
Edgar
Guest
In other words, you’ve got nothing. You haven’t even attempted to explain how a heart and its essential partner - the brain stem - could have evolved separately, yet ended up perfectly attuned to each other. It’s likely that you’ve never considered a problematic scenario like this, due to the steady diet of blind faith, delusion and assumptions that form the basis of your evolutionary “science”.
And that’s why science (“nature”) can’t explain the gaps and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record.
“Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It’s as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history” - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmake, 1987, p.229
"Thus the fossil record seems to show that most of the major animal groups appeared similtaneously. In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish … molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational … This explosive evolutionary radiation of the Cambrian seems to be unique … nor was there a similar radiation when animals invaded the land … the colonisation of the land saw no new ways of making an animal " - S. J. Gould (p. 116-117)
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
It may be a little “weird”, but it’s not really surprising and it’s not relevant.
Since the halls of biological science are dominated by an atheist zeitgeist, a professional biologist openly preaching ID would probably encounter persecution and threats to his career. Furthermore, most biologists are probably too brainwashed by scientism and evolution folklore to think about creation and ID.
Johnson is no dummy and he has no doubt had fellow-travellers in the form of competant biologists educating him and advising him behind the scenes. He probably knows more about evolutionary theory than your average biologist, who has no practical use for and thus no need to study stories about how sponges and jelly fish supposedly turned into humans.
Darwin on Trial is a good read and I believe Johnson can be trusted to not quote evolutionists out-of-context - unlike some fundamentalist creationists I’ve encountered.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Francis Crick concluded that aliens seeded the earth - and he was an esteemed scientist, so it must be true. Richard Dawkins suggested aliens seeding the earth was a serious possibility - and he is an esteemed scientist, so it must be true.
R
rossum
Guest
The heart is a muscle. The simplest system we observe is jellyfish, which have muscles, nerves to control those muscles but no brain. They don’t have a heart as such, just fluid sloshing round the body cavity which is kept moving by ordinary muscle movements.
Brains evolved later to provide more complex control over muscles. Muscles also got more complex: legs and their attached muscles for instance.
Hearts evolved to help sloshing body fluids around. Even now, parts of our circulatory system are not pumped by the heart. Returning blood through veins is pumped by ordinary muscle movements and our entire lymphatic system is pumped the same way.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Let’s throw another snowball off the tip of the iceberg that constitutes our knowledge of the body.
The myocardium is composed of one of the three types of muscles in our bodies, a feature we share with those animals created with a spinal column. The other two are smooth muscles, those found in our gastrointestinal system, the bladder, the skin, veins and arteries and the iris, and skeletal muscles, which are mainly attached to bones by collagen fibres giving us the ability to move. They are anatomically and physiologically very different.
The heart is a work of wonder, and a complete description would fill pages, if not a book. Focussing on the histology, suffice to say that cardiac cells, cardiomyocytes, are arranged in layers, such that the ones closest to the inside of the heart are perpendicular to those closest to the outside. This is what causes it to constrict in the most efficient manner to pump all the blood out. We should bear in mind, that the coronary arteries, feeding the heart with oxygen, utilize smooth muscles. Each cardiomyocytes is surrounded by the extracellular matrix, made up of collagen, elastin and glycosaminoglycans, which bind with water to act as a shock absorber. This matrix is produced by cells called fibroblasts, which can, when an injury occurs, turn into myofibroblasts that acquire some of the function of a smooth muscle cells, contracting and pulling the wound together. As with skeletal muscles, a contraction begins with an action potential, that is the transfer of ions between the inside and outside of the cell membrane. One difference is that calcium is required in the extracellular fluid of myocardiocytes, whereas it is not for the muscles we use to move. Another difference is that cardiac muscles contract spontaneously. They can’t all beat randomly, or the heart wouldn’t work, but if you place two cardiac muscle cells together, they will beat in unison. Skeletal muscles contain many nuclei, whereas myocardiocytes usually just have one, although they may have up to four. Conversely, they have many mitochondria to provide the necessary energy for the heart to beat continuously for a lifetime. The cells responsible for the beating of the heart contain T-tubules that are continuous with the cell membrane, and run into the cell. Containing the extracellular fluid, they open at the surface and, forming a transverse-axial network, join at the centre of the cell, where a single tubule connects to the sarcoplasmic reticulum, that internally stores calcium. The T-tubules permit the rapid transmission of action potentials as well as regulating calcium levels.
I could go on, in more detail, but hopefully this is sufficient to get a point across that we, and all of nature around us is miraculous. As we pierce the darkness, we find wonder upon wonder, everywhere, ultimately to find that Wonder looking back at us, beckoning us forth.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Which all boils down to, “It sure looks designed to me.” I might also point out that your God is far more complex than what you have described, yet you have no problem with your God not being designed.
I can also quote someone else who shares your view of the wonders of life:
B
buffalo
Guest
God transcends creation.
R
rossum
Guest
I was discussing complexity, not transcendence. Any omniscient entity has to be complex, just to handle all the information needed to be omniscient.
If complexity requires design, as the ID side contends, then it has to explain the origin of the complexity inherent in the intelligent designer. Either a God or an alien computer has to be complex enough to be capable of designing life on earth. How did that complexity originate?
If ID wants to be science and to be taught in science classes, then it has to provide a scientific explanation. A theological explanation means that ID will be taught in religion classes, not science classes.
B
buffalo
Guest
You do not understand metaphysical simplicity nor an unconditioned reality. He is simple, has no parts and is indivisible. He is reality itself and pure spirit.
Last edited:
A
Atreju
Guest
How does this mesh with the idea of the trinity? Three persons in one God is more complex than one person in one God.
B
buffalo
Guest
They are consubstantial.
A
Atreju
Guest
Yes, but it is certainly by definition not purely simple. God is complex.
B
buffalo
Guest
He is the same essence.
More Proofs for God
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
R
rossum
Guest
If God is simple, then you should have no problem with a simple cause for life on earth. That destroys the ID argument that simple causes cannot give rise to life.
B
buffalo
Guest
Look at the videos above and then let’s discuss.
R
rossum
Guest
That does not tell me whether or not you accept a simple cause for life on earth or a complex cause.
I have no need to look at ID propaganda videos; they all boil down to “Isn’t it complicated. It sure looks designed to me.” We know that evolutionary processes can increase complexity. I have no problem with evolutionary processes doing exactly what they have been observed to do: increase complexity.
Do any of your videos include the effects of natural selection? If they don’t then they have a huge hole in their argument. If they do not talk about natural selection then they are not talking about evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Oh well. The video explains metaphysical simplicity very well. Too bad you are not open.
R
rossum
Guest
That was not an answer. Do you accept a simple cause for life on earth: yes or no?
I will not accept equivocating between simple and complex.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
God’s neither simple nor complex, since that requires a prior cause which determines whether God is (A) simple or (B) complex. And if there is a prior cause, its not God.
- Status