What's new
By:

Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.

Gameface said:
Sure. So you're saying that animals DNA can actually respond to their environment and produce a custom fit mutation in an attempt to better take advantage of it? Or are you saying all this was planned out by an omnipotent force at the beginning of time. Or both?
Click to expand...

Yes to your first question.
and sort of to your second.

It doesn't have to be an omnipotent force, but a compelling intelligent force that pushes toward more complexity and coordination.

If you involve a God than the design got more complex over time...a learning process if you will...the same as with any field of design.
 
One Brow said:
I agree with colton that there is no test for true randomness versus divinely-inspired guidance. However, given the immense brutality of the evolutionary process on the level of individuals and populations, divinely-inspired guidance would come from a divinity that was, at the very least, willing to use such cruelties.
Click to expand...

Believers in a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God (such as myself) already have to answer the question of why God allows horrible things to happen to some people. I see your comment as merely an extension of that.
 
PearlWatson said:
I'm saying Darwin's theory includes random mutation...meaning the change from simple to more complex is by accident, not design or through an intelligent force. So if you think "God's hand" is involved in the changes you really don't believe in Darwinism at all.
Click to expand...

So it's exclusion by definition is it? That's fine if you want to play that game, but don't think we didn't notice.

Tell me again how you would tell the difference between true randomness and divinely-guided randomness?
 
When I roll a die it is random in our eyes but isn't truly random. Judging from the angular velocity, time in the air, wind etc it can be known exactly what it is gonna land on. Evolution is random in our eyes but nothing is truly random. You could say quantum mechanics is random but many physicists hold a deterministic view.

Also yes the paper I linked is about the origin of life and the book I quoted is about rarity of earth. I am saying both things are very rare phenomena. Life is known very well to have only developed once and earth might as well be the only place in entire universe to have life. I am not saying there is or isn't. I am just exposing the stupidity of the atheist claim that the this universe isn't fine tuned for life on our planet.
 
colton said:
So it's exclusion by definition is it? That's fine if you want to play that game, but don't think we didn't notice.

Tell me again how you would tell the difference between true randomness and divinely-guided randomness?
Click to expand...

I don't get why you think it is some kind of game. I was explaining that it seems as though you agree more with ID scientists than Darwinists.

I don't see any randomness in the make up of life, so why would I try to distinguish a difference. It is Darwinists who insist on accidental mutations leading to new attributes and new species, not me.
 
One Brow said:
Don't the alternative DNA codings suggest life developed more than once?

If life developed on other planets, how would we know?
Click to expand...

"A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" by Douglas L. Theobald published in Nature (2010). According to this paper using multiple forms of statistical analysis life almost certainly originated from one source and evolved from there.

We don't know if life exists on other planets. The book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000) suggests that earth might possibly be the only place that life exists. I don't know if I believe it or not since there are about 10^23 stars in visible universe. Forgot life, the chance that me and you live and exist is so rare. The chance my dads single sperm out of millions met with my moms single egg out of thousands. This goes on for each of my parents and grandparents for countless generations. Atheists counter this with "well there is a 100% chance something happens, and this just happened to happen" but they got no counter what so ever to "why does anything have to happen at all, why isn't it just nothing at all." Aristotle had a good definition of nothing. What rocks dream about.
 
Gameface said:
Is a two headed snake less complex than a one headed snake? Humm, seems mutations can lead to greater complexity.
Click to expand...

...two headed snakes or two headed turtles are extremely rare and die much sooner than their regular counter part! And nothing has become more "complex" in a two headed creature! They have the same function as the normal kind.
 
PearlWatson said:
But nothing about our bodies and the coordinated processes involved in keeping us alive seem random, they seem designed. It is ludicrous to think any part of us happened by accident (random mutation).
Click to expand...

Excellent point! And when you take a look at some of the marvelous creatures in our earthly environment and ask some logical, simple, rational, scientific questions about them....how can evolution be true? How did these life forms develop? How did these creatures survive? How could all present life forms "gradually evolve" from brown seaweed, or from trees, or from amoeba, or from flatworms? There are more than one million three hundred thousand cataloged species on this earth. And in every one of those 1,300,000 cases, there is a special, interesting life story! In every case there are special methods of nest building, of protection through camouflage, or coloration, of mating and breeding, of migrating, or food-getting techniques! Every creature has different methods of "survival" which evolution cannot explain!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top