21 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayYou may stop if you wish, but doing so on the pretence that humy is not 'really seriously into this discussion' is just plain ridiculous. He has clearly put a lot of effort into addressing your questions and explaining his point of view and clarifying it when it is not clear to you.
I don't think you are really seriously into this discussion, I think we can just stop here.
21 Jun 13
9 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Yesterday does not mean a million years ago. Yesterday means the day before today or the day before the present day. So it is easy to prove yesterday existed. However, nobody can prove man or any other creature existed a million years ago. You are just a bald faced liar, if you say they can.
The Instructor
Yesterday means the day before today or the day before the present day. So it is easy to prove yesterday existed.
Actually, If you read what I said again, you see I was giving 'proof' (with your erroneous logic) that nothing happened yesterday to the Earth because the Earth didn't exist yesterday. So even if yesterday exists by definition, this would be irrelevant for the 'fact' (using your logic) would remain that the Earth didn't exist then.
OK, How about this then:
The universe didn't exist yesterday. All the vast mountain of physical evidence of the Earth is millions of years old and life evolved, along with false memories and false records of events haven occurred yesterday and a huge amount of past history before that, were all put there by God at midnight last night which is when God created the Earth and the whole universe. Prove me wrong if you can.
21 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will stop responding to his posts. I have gone to great lengths to address his points only for him to rudely through that back into my face. What a complete waste of my time.
You may stop if you wish, but doing so on the pretence that humy is not 'really seriously into this discussion' is just plain ridiculous. He has clearly put a lot of effort into addressing your questions and explaining his point of view and clarifying it when it is not clear to you.
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI do believe you were not cutting me slack and I found your reply more
I will stop responding to his posts. I have gone to great lengths to address his points only for him to rudely through that back into my face. What a complete waste of my time.
nit picky than addressing the points I was making trying to address yours.
That being said, I do believe you are right here in what you said about me
being rude to you.
Sorry for coming off that way, I will say my bad and I am in the wrong.
Kelly
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are getting closer to the time when we will be making life from non-life in the labs. That is as good as a time machine. Of course you can hoot and holler all your creationist intelligent designer arguments all day long till then but after we do make life in the labs, all that goes out the window and you will have to find a NEW rationalization to support creationism.
[b]"OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?"
I don't believe random mutations being filtered through natural selection
can build and maintain anything that requires consistency let alone
developing mech ...[text shortened]... . Hard to disprove what occured
a billion/million years ago without a time machine.
Kelly[/b]
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYep I agree, can you define life?
We are getting closer to the time when we will be making life from non-life in the labs. That is as good as a time machine. Of course you can hoot and holler all your creationist intelligent designer arguments all day long till then but after we do make life in the labs, all that goes out the window and you will have to find a NEW rationalization to support creationism.
Kelly
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsTheories don't start and stop. No matter how long you stomp your feet, evolution theory does not describe life originating from non-life, so whatever problems you have in this regard don't concern evolution theory.
Anyone with the basic knowledge of biology knows that the theory of evilution does not even get started without the formation of life. So if life can not come from non-living matter then life must have been created from the living God of the Holy Bible. And the Holy Bible says evilution is false.
And your lack of knowledge on the complexity of the DNA c ...[text shortened]... the theory of evilution or that any argument is debunked just by your say so.
The Instructor
Saying "DNA is too complex to have evolved" without describing what limits the "complexity" possible through evolution is not an argument.
21 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by humyThat is not using my logic. That is using a strawman logic that you made up.Yesterday means the day before today or the day before the present day. So it is easy to prove yesterday existed.
Actually, If you read what I said again, you see I was giving 'proof' (with your erroneous logic) that nothing happened yesterday to the Earth because the Earth didn't exist yesterday. So even if yesterday exists by def hich is when God created the Earth and the whole universe. Prove me wrong if you can.[/b]
There is no mass evidence that the Earth existed millions of years ago. The real evidence we have can only prove the Earth existed to around 6000 or so years. It could have existed longer than that, but we have not hard proof, only speculations based on many assumptions that are not fact or science either.
I can easily prove yesterday existed because I have mail I receved with postmark dates on it. Everyone has bills for services rendered stating the date that those services were performed in the past. We have many historical records that can take us only so far back into the past and a chronology of events that can take us back even furture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible
However, evilutionist who think they can date things by layers of sediment or fossil bones must make assuptions that are not known, since there is no date stamped on any of that stuff. There was also no record of a chronology to date any of it. So the evilutionists made up a chronology that they liked and convinced others to put in science books. Now that is what you think is science.
The Instructor
21 Jun 13
8 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadPersonally, I would say yes because I would personally define life simply as anything that has these four characteristics:
So is a virus, life?
(1) it is made of matter (so a computer virus is not life but a physical virus is)
(2) it can reproduce or at least was produced by a lifeform reproducing (Thus worker ants are life because, even though they cannot reproduce themselves, they were produced by a queen ant reproducing)
(3) it must have genetic inheritable material (normally DNA or RNA but can be something else) that determines some of its characteristics (thus growing and reproducing crystals are not life)
(4) it must require a liquid solvent (usually water but it can be another liquid solvent) to have chemical reactions between solutes (The sum of all those chemical reactions would normally be called 'metabolism' in this context) in at least one part of its life cycle that it would not be able to complete without it (thus self-replicating machines with just dry solid parts would not generally be considered to be life although they would also generally not be considered to be life because of (3) )
22 Jun 13
1 edit
Is there any difference between what we know has been intelligently designed by humans (or structures built by other living things) and anything else seen in nature? If so, what is that difference?
And by anything else seen in nature I'm referring to inanimate matter and the forces of nature. How can we be sure that something as simple as a birds nest was probably not produced through natural forces alone?
If there is no discernable difference, then what guidlines do we use to determine if something has been made by man or by nature? If we didn't see the pyramids being built, and knew nothing of their history, how could we be sure they were built by men? Or would we look at them and automatically think they are natural formations.
These are the sort of questions the design argument seeks to answer. If it makes some people uncomfortable because it implies something they do not believe, that by itself does not (because it can not) invalidate a theory of intelligent design.
22 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeI would like to dismiss just human design, for birds nests are built they do
Is there any difference between what we know has been intelligently designed by humans (or structures built by other living things) and anything else seen in nature? If so, what is that difference?
And by anything else seen in nature I'm referring to inanimate matter and the forces of nature. How can we be sure that something as simple as a bird lieve, that by itself does not (because it can not) invalidate a theory of intelligent design.
not just appear in trees or buildings due to gravity and wind, the same thing
with Bee Hives, Wasp nest, and other structures built by something that
has the ability and desire to make something.
I recall someone once making a point about rocks, they were riding in a
train and there were rocks along the train tracks they thought nothing of
them for there wasn't a pattern or anything that drew their attention,
until they saw rocks all the same size and colors laid out in a patter that
said, "Welcome to ___" I forget the name of the town. While it was possible
that all the rocks they saw were put where s/he saw them by design, the
ones that spelled out the message were without a doubt were there by
design in my opinion.
Kelly
22 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
Is there any difference between what we know has been intelligently designed by humans (or structures built by other living things) and anything else seen in nature? If so, what is that difference?
And by anything else seen in nature I'm referring to inanimate matter and the forces of nature. How can we be sure that something as simple as a bird lieve, that by itself does not (because it can not) invalidate a theory of intelligent design.
Is there any difference between what we know has been intelligently designed by humans (or structures built by other living things) and anything else seen in nature?
Not really other than with one we have evidence that it was intelligently designed and the other we do not and sometimes also in many cases have direct evidence that it wasn't intelligently designed, at least not with flawless intelligence like that from your 'god'.
How can we be sure that something as simple as a birds nest was probably not produced through natural forces alone?
We can SEE birds making nests. -evidence.
what guidlines do we use to determine if something has been made by man or by nature?
Look at the evidence.
If we didn't see the pyramids being built,
'We' (us in the modern age) haven't seen them being built. But we see evidence of other buildings today being built so we can at least guess that buildings are normally built by people and the pyramids certainly look like buildings! and we have physical evidence that people built the pyramids such as scratch marks on its stone from stone-cutting tools etc.
and knew nothing of their history
No. We do know something about their history. For example, we know approximately when they were built.
These are the sort of questions the design argument seeks to answer.
No, that is the sort of questions the design argument seeks to justify faith in a religious.