- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,215
- 2,564
- 315
- Thread starter
- #301
You could make up a new god like you did.If I was an atheist and didn't agree with evolution, then what do I have left?
`
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You could make up a new god like you did.If I was an atheist and didn't agree with evolution, then what do I have left?
I don't refute evolution.Another little known but strong point for Evo, and it's on your body.
See the OP at least.
Seymour Flops
"apparently designed"I don't refute evolution.
I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
I just showed you they are the same in another thread.Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
Sorry that's laughableYou could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
As it turns out some of the parts have some lesser use, but, ie, Wisdom teeth would have been killing people before modern dentistry an anti-biotics.Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.
What Does the Appendix Do?
www.healthline.com
One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.
The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.www.webmd.com
If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.
What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…
If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.www.sciencefocus.com
If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.
I don't refute evolution.
I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.
What Does the Appendix Do?
www.healthline.com
One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.
The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.www.webmd.com
If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.
What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…
If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.www.sciencefocus.com
If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.
I don't refute evolution.
I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.
What Does the Appendix Do?
www.healthline.com
One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.
The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.www.webmd.com
If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.
What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…
If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.www.sciencefocus.com
If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.
Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote. Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said. I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.You claim you don't refute evolution but then go on to introduce ''designer gods'' as somehow being required to somehow explain diversity of life on the planet.
Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record. It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).
In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
You keep repeating the Big Lie.Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote. Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said. I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.
Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record. It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.
None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth. That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.
Then yes, you do "refute" the theory of evolution. Literally all of it, top to bottom.don't refute evolution.
I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer
Hollie, putting works in quotation marks is supposed to indicate . . . well . . . a quote. Meaning a word for word repetition of what the quoted person actually said. I never said, "designer gods," that I know of.
Yes, that species evolved, one from another, is the fairest interpretation of the fossil record. It isn't scientific fact, but it is solid natural history.
None of that refutes the apparent design of life on Earth. That apparent design is so difficult to refute that why even Richard Dawkins proposed an intelligent designer.
But creationists do not necessarily assume a young Earth, and the Bible doesn't actually depict a young Earth.I don't refute evolution.
I do question the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species. It strikes me as a Rube Goldberg-like attempt to explain the existence of such a wide variety of apparently designed life forms without a designer.
Most importantly, in a country like the United States, even if I became completely convinced that Darwinian evolution is true, I could still respect people who disagree with that.
The existence of vestigial organs is somewhat of a refutation of creationism, but a very poor refutation of intelligent design theory.
You could ask, 'why would a creator include vestigial organs.' But you would not convince a creationist. Creationism cannot be scientifically refuted, because it falls back on "appearance of age." If your belief in a creator who make all life on Earth in a matter of days includes the belief that the creator also make life look old, there is no way to prove that false.
This may be hard for you to grasp, so you may want to research it: If a purported theory cannot be falsified, it is not a theory in the scientific sense, but only in the colloquial sense.
Vestigial organs do not refute intelligent design theory, for two reasons:
1) vestigial organs, such as the snake's leg bones, and human appendixes can just as well be interpreted as trial and error by the apparent designer as it can a gradual reduction of usefulness during the process of Darwinian evolution.
2) it is possible that there are health benefits to the appendix that health science has not fully realized.
Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health.
What Does the Appendix Do?
www.healthline.com
One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.
The Appendix (Human Anatomy): Appendix Picture, Definition, Function, Conditions, Tests, and Treatments
WebMD’s Appendix Anatomy Page provides detailed images, definitions, and information about the appendix. Learn about its function, parts, location in the body, and conditions that affect the appendix, as well as tests and treatments for appendix conditions.www.webmd.com
If you hear someone mention their appendix, you might expect the words “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway” to follow. But new research by scientists in Australia and France suggests that this little-appreciated part of your gut might not be quite as pointless as once thought.
Their study, published in Nature Immunology, shows that the appendix may in fact act as a reservoir for ‘good bacteria’. These bacteria contribute to keeping the gut healthy and helping you recover from infections. The study’s findings contradict a commonly held belief that the appendix has no function.
What does the appendix do? A lot more than we thought…
If someone mentions their appendix, you might also expect to hear “had to be removed” and “useless thing anyway,” but new research suggests it might not be as pointless as once thought.www.sciencefocus.com
If it turns out that the appendix indeed has a function in modern humans, that would tend to show that either the appendix evolved to serve that function, or that the designer is even smarter than scientists of previous decades.
No, you are wrong immediately.Then yes, you do "refute" the theory of evolution. Literally all of it, top to bottom.
So let's get that clear immediately.
Not all of them. But many do. Or at least they used to.But creationists do not necessarily assume a young Earth, and the Bible doesn't actually depict a young Earth.
The incredible intricacy of the "simplest" of organisms on Earth lends itself much more to having been designed, than having randomly occurred though random genetic mutations.What apparent design? I don't see any indication of design by any supposed designer. If someone was going to refute some alleged apparent (supernatural) design, there would first be the need for a rational case to be made for such a designer. Why don't you provide some evidence of design? Evidence of design implies something in the natural world is, how shall we say, unnatural. Can you identify an unnatural event, object or circumstance that would point to a supernatural designer?
''... because I say so'' is not an argument.The incredible intricacy of the "simplest" of organisms on Earth lends itself much more to having been designed, than having randomly occurred though random genetic mutations.
I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?''... because I say so'' is not an argument.
We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer
This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever
Dawkins [seemingly] against the whole weight of Biology/Sci community is nothing and also constitutes another of my seminal Debunking threads:I guess you are smarter than Richard Dawkins, then?
Here's some more quotes from the same article:
By ruling out design, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
So, Dawkins' purpose in denying intelligent design is to support his religious faith.
Even so, he had to admit that there is "apparent" design, just as I say.
Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed — and that the design might be detectable.
What more do you need?
Very few people believe the earth is youngNot all of them. But many do. Or at least they used to.
I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time, since it was usually fruitless. When I did do that, the idea that they Earth was young, but with an appearance of age seemed pretty common.
Maybe creationism has evolved, no pun intended.
What science doesnt have is ANY proof a mammal every evolved into two or more entirely different species.''... because I say so'' is not an argument.
We have irrefutable evidence of genetic mutations and irrefutable evidence that biological organisms mutate due to chemical, environmental and other external forces. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer
What the supernaturalists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness
Have the creationists moved away from that position?Very few people believe the earth is young