noguru
Well-known member
Despite your protests to the contrary, I have a very good understanding of Genesis. And it is not a scientific treatise about biodiversity. If you understood reality you would understand, well, reality.
Last edited:
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Despite your protests to the contrary, I have a very good understanding of Genesis. And it is not a scientific treatise about biodiversity. If you understood reality you would understand, well, reality.
doloresistere
New member
Why did God make all vertebrate eyes have the retina behind the ganglion, amacrine, blood vessels, bipolar cells, whereas invertebrates have the retina in front? Did he want them having a harder time finding their prey and predators?
noguru
Well-known member
In my opinion we need to stop asking ourselves "Why did God do it this way? Why did God do it that way?", and learn how to accept from all the empirical evidence how He actually did things. If God did it in another way than can be ascertained from every evidence we have at our disposal, then I think he will understand our misunderstanding. Anyone one telling me how they think God did it ought to have a pretty thorough and rigorous analysis of all things pertinent, and not just some flimsy excuse as to why I should just take their word for it.
Endogenous Retroviruses: evidence of Evolution? Think again!
It matters little what DNA chips have in common with humans, we are vastly different, not because of DNA, but because we are more than physical beings. If there was not something more, something supernatural about us, we would not be so vastly different given we have so much DNA in common.
--Dave
It matters little what DNA chips have in common with humans, we are vastly different, not because of DNA, but because we are more than physical beings. If there was not something more, something supernatural about us, we would not be so vastly different given we have so much DNA in common.
--Dave
| * RSR Prediction #1: Dawkins and Eye Wiring: Real Science Radio makes a prediction that Richard Dawkins will never again repeat his discredited claim that the human eye was poorly designed in that it is "wired backwards." It turns out that the "backwards" wiring of the human eye has extraordinary design advantages including that it enables the rapid replacement of cells destroyed by bright light. Fred makes an ancillary prediction that evolutionists generally will keep referring to this discredited claim. |
-source.
Tyrathca
New member
Neither did your quote do anything to show it does. Just because you think they are the same does not mean everyone else has to. Need I repeat myself in saying "It doesn't mean you can substitute mutation load and entropy where ever you find it whenever you want to" - that means that when you see I or any scientist saying "mutational load" you can't just substitute in "entropy" just because they didn't pre-emptively post a treatise against your stupid assumptions each time.
You are a liar plain and simple and have been caught using pathetic quote mining. You're not even smart about it, most quote miners aren't dumb enough to quote mine someone who can reply to them.
What you mean is Genesis is not about evolution because if it was then you would be saying it was about science.
--Dave :cheers:
noguru
Well-known member
No, despite your attempts to misrepresent what I said, I stick to my original comment.
Biodiversity is not necessarily evolution. Evolution is the human attempt to understand biodiversity through the empirical evidence. If you think that Genesis is a scientific treatise on biodiversity, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence. Not just your unsubstantiated opinion.
noguru
Well-known member
:rotfl:
Brilliant!
OK, captain obvious strikes again. And it is only your opinion that your 4 evidence are substantiated. You have completely ignored all accurate criticisms of you "so-called" evidences. This is why you are a joke. Your ego is so over bloated that you are incapable of seeing over it. The funny thing is that you think labeling yourself "Christian" will blind everyone from the fraud you are trying to perpetuate.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Do you have any evidence to suggest that vertebrates have a harder time finding prey than invertebrates, other than your own doubts about how the eye is designed?
doloresistere
New member
If it is strictly up to eyesight, vertebrates have much poorer vision than non vertebrates who do not have a blindspot.
One Eyed Jack
New member
What predators do you know of that use only their eyesight?
doloresistere
New member
The point is that God deliberately caused vertebrates to have poorer vision than invertebrates which required him to design other means to improve their prey catching ability.
Therefore, what?
6days
New member
WHAT??? hahaha You gotta be joking??
Dear 6days,
I don't know what to tell you. I don't think so!
Michael
I don't know what to tell you. I don't think so!
Michael
gcthomas
New member
Entropy is a thermodynamic state variable, not a process, so entropy is a result, not a cause of anything.
alwight
New member
alwight
New member
Who exactly is "adonizedek" the apparent owner of this blog Dave?
Is peer review involved in any of this or is this just an opinion of a creationist?
"Overview of the ERV Controversy"
What controversy?
Mainstream genetic science doesn't seem to think so, or is this supposedly another part of the global scientific conspiracy by "evolutionists" as imagined by creationists?
Are we really so vastly different Dave? A few small changes to variables in a computer program can make a huge difference to appearance and the way it functions. But we have basically got all the same parts as chimps that work in the same way that only a few tweaks in DNA could change the parameters substantially.
You otoh simply seem to rush to conclude a supernatural based on the very specific supernatural that you have already pre-concluded from Biblical scripture.
I'd say rather that your religious end is attempting to justify the somewhat emotional supernatural means you propose instead of secular rigorous scientific conclusions founded in cold facts, evidence and peer review, all of which rather rains on your parade Dave.
Last edited:
- Status