The Neck of the Giraffe

@chaney3 said
Are you trying to convert him to your belief?

Otherwise your back and forth with him is very meaningless.

If I argue someone into my beliefs, they can argue themselves out of it, or someone
else can argue them out of it. I believe that the only thing that matters is God and
man, if they and God do not connect with one another it doesn't matter and only
God can do that. They need to know God, have God's Spirit within them, and that
only occurs when someone turns their hearts and lives over God. God draws us
and we answer, that isn't me, that is them and God.

@kellyjay said
If I argue someone into my beliefs, they can argue themselves out of it, or someone
else can argue them out of it. I believe that the only thing that matters is God and
man, if they and God do not connect with one another it doesn't matter and only
God can do that. They need to know God, have God's Spirit within them, and that
only occurs when someone turns their hearts and lives over God. God draws us
and we answer, that isn't me, that is them and God.

This post doesn't make sense.
Sorry.

@wolfgang59 said
Just because an animal is successful does not mean it is well designed!

Would you call a dewclaw on a dog well designed?

Would you call the hip bone in a whale well designed?

Would you call the eyes of a mole-rat well designed?

Really, you think there are well designed animals that die off due to defects?
There are standards for everything we make, I used to help test CPUs and we
stressed them every way we could to get them to fail. Then we applied all manner
of tests designed to see how they would act theoretically over years of use. At the
end of the day they either did what we wanted or they didn't, a live creature is just
that alive.

If its alive and thriving doesn't that prove it was well designed? Successful isn't
because we think we could do it better, success is alive and thrive. The bumble
bee has been called a bad design, yet it flies, its alive and thriving. What standard
do you use to come up with this is a bad design? If they have features you think
should be different, how do you know they would with those tweaks die off?

@chaney3 said
This post doesn't make sense.
Sorry.

It isn't my goal to talk someone into the Christian faith. I can share the gospel and
its up to God to do the work not me.

@kellyjay said
If its alive and thriving doesn't that prove it was well designed?

No.
As demonstrated in my previous post and by the anatomy of the giraffe..

@kellyjay said
the day of rest for example wasn't because He got tired.

Genesis says he rested.
You cannot rest if you are not tired!

@wolfgang59 said
Genesis says he rested.
You cannot rest if you are not tired!

Really, a day of rest requires one to be tired or it doesn't count?

@wolfgang59 said
No.
As demonstrated in my previous post and by the anatomy of the giraffe..

Yes, you don't like the features so its bad design, it doesn't matter that it is functional,
the giraffe gets along famously as is!?

@kellyjay said
Yes, you don't like the features so its bad design, it doesn't matter that it is functional,
the giraffe gets along famously as is!?

You think my dog's dewclaw good design?
And how about the plantaris muscle in humans? Useful?

Explain how something that has no function can be useful.

It is like an electric car being designed with a carburetor.

@wolfgang59 said
You think my dog's dewclaw good design?
And how about the plantaris muscle in humans? Useful?

Explain how something that has no function can be useful.

It is like an electric car being designed with a carburetor.

I told you what my views are on good designs. I don't have to see, or need to
know It all, if it’s alive and will continue to be, the design was good. If there
are ‘defects' due to abnormal circumstances, those wouldn’t fall into the norm of
the design specs. That said a good design would also take the possibility of these
types of abnormalities into account. So that most flaws wouldn’t be show
stoppers, but allow for them, so if they occur, they would not kill off the lifeform.

I’m not an advocate of the common ancestor for all life in evolution, but I do
believe in changes over time in kinds, which could introduce anomalies. This
would have to be a part of the original design specifications in my opinion. So
that even through time breaking down wouldn’t be the norm but still the
possibilities of occurrences are accounted for, so that life could/would continue.
This would not be much different than what I shared about our theoretical testing
for functionality by simulating years of use, except here we are seeing real world
issues not stopping a life from continuing, even if something occurs out of the
norm.

The fact that flaws are seen and life goes on, good design.

@kellyjay said
I don't have to see, or need to
know It all,

Therein lies the problem.
You do not need to know.

Keep your head firmly in the sand Kelly.
If you take it out you might see something that challenges your shaky faith.

@chaney3 said
Was the first human created a man, or an infant?

Because an infant would have died on its own.

Clearly, the first human had parents.

They might not have been "human" (Homo sapiens sapiens, but they might have been), but yes, he had parents.

Creating a mate for him out of his rib is a "nice story, bro", but not necessarily true. She had parents, too.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Many Christians view evolution as a threat to 'creation' but it actually does lend more to a devoted deity, where creation wasn't just a one-off event but an ongoing process. In their pursuit to protect (the clearly analogous) idea of Adam and Eve they miss the far more significant possibility that God created humans through the long and attentive process of evolution.

Yes, I have always argued in this forum that Evolution could be the way that "God-did-it".

I had many arguments with RJHinds, who believed in a 6/24-hour-days creation. I always reproached him for not having enough faith in God to think he had to be limited to just "poof"ing stuff into existence like a stage magician. I've said many times that both sides are right, and that they both just like to argue about it. I've seen nothing in this thread to make me change my mind.

@suzianne said
Clearly, the first human had parents.

They might not have been "human" (Homo sapiens sapiens, but they might have been), but yes, he had parents.

Creating a mate for him out of his rib is a "nice story, bro", but not necessarily true. She had parents, too.

No species in the entire history of Life on
this planet has ever given birth to another species.

Something Creationists cannot seem to grasp.

@wolfgang59 said
Therein lies the problem.
You do not need to know.

Keep your head firmly in the sand Kelly.
If you take it out you might see something that challenges your shaky faith.

This is all you got out of what I said?