Greg Jennings
New member
For something to be a good post, I normally require it to be true. But I'm old-fashioned like that
"Far Too Wondrous" --Darwin
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
For something to be a good post, I normally require it to be true. But I'm old-fashioned like that
Your measly posts amount to drivel, 6DAYS knows his stuff
Greg Jennings
New member
You're welcome to believe that. But just like the creation story in Genesis, belief doesn't make it true
Citation of respectable journal please, otherwise you might withdraw that claim.
Unambiguous evidence of an eye not being produced by natural selection please, otherwise you might withdraw that claim.
I can do that one for you: Proverbs 20:12
But these proverbs include this (KJV):
Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD
Stuart
No he doesn't. And if that wasn't tedious enough he is also lazy. He never references any of his claims.
Real professional scientists have a kind of social contract with the rest of society to only make conclusions based on the most rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis of as much relevant data as possible. Even then the conclusions they draw are only ever provisional.
What responsibility does the amateur young earth creationist have to society? None. Just think if the christian delusion hadn't diverted the brightest of the YECs from considering reality as it really is, we might have had all sorts of medical advances by now.
What a shower of ignoramuses or liars. Most don't have the first grasp on the thing they think they hate.
Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Stuart
Interplanner
Well-known member
But of course, the whole point is that it is not against science. It is against the idea that science cannot be subsumed inside a view with a living and personal Creator as found in Judeo-Christianity. It was Lyell and the Huxley in the background of Darwin who wanted to get rid of the 'physico-theologians' which meant the people who could satisfactorily merge physical science with theology, such as Psalm 104 or Charles Manley Hopkins in "The World Is Charged With the Glory of God." There were Christians from the period who specifically said that their knowledge of nature/creation made their knowledge of Christ stronger. Ie, there is no built-in, automatic, ipso facto conflict; but modern thinkers do not want accountability to God so they have made the physical sciences off-limits to Christians.
Demonstration of that claim with reference to something written by Darwin, please, or I suggest you withdraw the remark.
Darwin knew full well more than most the beauty of the diversity of life on earth, and the conflict between a creationist point of view and the reality that was unfolding before him.
Charles Darwin was unquestionably one of the most insightful geniuses ever to walk the planet. He revolutionised all of biology, and has not been disproved by anyone in 156 years.
But I guess you would put the views of Ken Ham or Henry Morris or the convicted liar Kent Hovind ahead of him. Disgraceful.
Stuart
Interplanner
Well-known member
Here's a similar one. I've seen so many, I've lost track.
Even Charles Darwin recognized that the eye was imminently complex and admitted that attempting to explain its origin through natural selection seemed absurd.
“ To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. [3] ”
Nevertheless, Darwin believed this absurdity was merely illusory, and proceeded to provide an explanation for its evolution in his book, The Origin of Species.
--creationwiki
http://creationwiki.org/Human_eye
The origin of all things is GOD
If you've got unambiguous evidence, then present it. Science is quite rude when it says 'put up or shut up'.
Have you anything to put up in favour of your fantasy conspiracy theory of gods running the universe that is anything more than 'what I reckon'?
Stuart
Well, a miracle! A creationist willing to admit the bit after the usual quote mine.
Let me quote if for you:
Do you have anything to counter the brilliant explanation Darwin gave at that point, or are you as lazy as 6days?
Do you need to be educated on all the various eye forms that exist in the natural world today that are exactly as you would expect of a series of useful variations?
Stuart
False Prophet
New member
Evolution is thought out scheme where one celled life forms fused together to form more complex life forms, but look at the cell; it too is well structured, so that thousands of complex organic molecules make them up.
6days
New member
Exactly! It is non sense and non science to think even a protein can self create without a code system from the Creator. And yet a protein is such a tiny part of a single cell.
* Our bodies contain about 100,000,000,000,000 cells
* Some cells are so small it would take 6,000 cells placed end to end to make 1 inch (apprx 2.5 CM)
* And yet if all our cells were placed end to end, they would encircle the earth more than 200 times
Each tiny cell has 3 major parts:
1. MEMBRANE- Ernest Borek has observed: “The membrane recognizes with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the cell’s requirements”
2. CYTOPLASM- There are over 20 different chemical reactions occurring at any one time, with each cell containing five major components for: (1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair; and (5) reproduction. Within the cytoplasm organelles as the mitochondria which can number more than 1000 per cell.
There is an amazing busy factory within each cell. For example:
A. Endoplasmic reticulum is a transport system that takes things to where they are needed.
B. Ribosomes are protein producing factories(within each cell)
C. Golgi bodies are warehouses which store the proteins until needed
D. Lysozomes are the 'gabage trucks' They dispose of the garbage.
3. NUCLEUS is the control center. Within the nucleus is the genetic machinery of the cell (chromosomes and genes containing DNA).
*Within each DNA there are about 3 billion base pairs
*The chemical code in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.
The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact of our Creator.
"I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well" Psalm 139:14
There are many great short videos which can give you an idea of the busy 'manufacturing city' within each of your cells. Here is one of the many videos trying to give you a glimpse; and keep in mind that this 'manufacturing city' is so tiny that up to 20,000 cells can fit within this '0'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
I always saw Darwin as a liar & a godless pagan as well. :thumb:
Darwin explained complexity completely, without a need for any gods, and replication explains the amount.
Until you can disprove Darwin, and demonstrate that replication can't produce large amounts of DNA, you still have your work ahead of you.
But since you are lazy, I predict you will achieve neither.
Stuart
6days
New member
Anything which begins to exist has a cause. God did not have a beginning and is the best, and most logical explanation for our fine tuned universe.....along with he sophisticated, complex and well designed life here on earth.
6days
New member
Darwin didn't have a clue about the complexity we see in our cells. Haeckle, a Darwin proseletyzer said the cell was "'simple lump' of aluminous combination of carbon"
What science has been proving every since the Miller Urey experiment is that extreme intelligence would be involved in creating life.