CAPSLOCKED:
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION. NEVER READ MORE THAN TWO LINES ABOUT IT.
BUT HOW CAN A DESIGNER BE CALLED PERFECT WHEN IT'S DESIGNS ARE ALL AWFUL, FLAWED, AND SEEM LIKE THEY EMERGED OUT OF RANDOM CHANCE?


HAKEEM4

CAPSLOCKED:
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION. NEVER READ MORE THAN TWO LINES ABOUT IT.



HAKEEM4

BUT HOW CAN A DESIGNER BE CALLED PERFECT WHEN IT'S DESIGNS ARE ALL AWFUL, FLAWED, AND SEEM LIKE THEY EMERGED OUT OF RANDOM CHANCE?

hakeem4:
Evolution has overwhelming evidence.
Now let me define some terms

Evolution is a scientific fact. This is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.

1)why I agree with evolution

Whether you believe it or not evolution is a true as the heat from the sun.

Now the theory that explains the process of evolution is called natural selection brought up by Charles Darwin.

I acknowledge the fact of evolution because of the evidence shown forth. In this thread I’m going to give you 3 convincing evidence for evolution by natural selection.

I) Fossils

II) similarity’s among different animals

III) similarity’s among animals DNA.

If these few points don’t still convince you about evolution. Then ask yourself this question “ why is evolution not heavily debated amongst the scientific community?”

2) why do I think design is wrong?

According the other camp “creationist” they proposed that due to the complexity of living things on earth then it must require a designer.

But using any religious story of creationism it doesn’t make any sense. For example the bible or the Quran story of creationism contradicts each other seriously. Okay creationist give us evidence for this intelligent designer then we start seeing red herrings. So with these few points I gave I hope I have convinced you that creationism is a faulty answer to how we have complex life

hakeem4:

Don’t mind people who believe the intelligent designer. Intelligent design is just another substitute for god.



You’d see many of them shifting goal post. Ask them questions about the laryngeal nerve and why is it so long in the human body when the distance it’s supposed to cover is not more than 4 inches. Then the supposed “ omniscient god” made the nerve pass through a long distance about 2ft long. Now imagine in giraffes it’s about 15ft. How intelligent is he?

The laryngeal nerve is one of the evidence of natural selection cause most living things had a common ancestor who once lived in water and fishes do not have necks, so it went straight. But as living things evolved it started stretching that distance.


dont mind creationist they don’t know anything

DoctorAlien:
What is your own response to your OP, johnydon?

DoctorAlien:
Okay here we go.

I subscribe to creationism, and in particular Biblical creationism. I believe that the universe which we observe was created by God in 6 literal days, as Genesis describes. (Is this my view classified under intelligent design (ID))? Therefore, because of the Biblical account, this earth, and this universe which we observe, cannot be more than about 6000 years old.

I hold this view first and foremost because the Bible teaches it. Yes! That is the primary reason why I hold this view. I believe that the Bible contains truth. Therefore what it says about origins is true. The second reason is that observations seem to agree, and is not at odds, with what the Bible said about the universe, and with what would be expected if the Biblical narrative is true.

I think other views of origins are wrong primarily because they don't agree with the Bible, which, I believe, contains truth.

johnydon22:


1. So, the universe to you was created ex materia (cosmos from chaos) and not ex nihilo?

2. What makes you think the earth or universe is 6,000 years? Any external pointers that informed this belief?

3. What evidences would you expect could make you understand earth isn't just 6000 years?

What observations?

So, your only reason to believe in creationism is the bible and because you believe the bible is true.

Doesn't this belief effectively result in a form of bias against ideas that question this belief?

Because as you have shown, your agreement is built on primarily belief ground not any form of deductive logical chain of thoughts

That's pretty weak argument to be honest.

Read my argument to hakeem4 to see the fundamental argument for design

johnydon22:
Awesome

This doesn't really hold any more merit than someone saying design is as true as heat from the sun.

How did fossils lead you to your conclusion? What fossils?

Similarities can also connote design, Cars are similar to each other yet are designed.

So how did similarity inform your stance?

This doesn't necessarily make something true - Appeal to authority. Otherwise we could point out things once widely held as true by the scientific community of the day that turned out not to be.

Let me play the devils advocate for design. Lol

Not necessarily plain complexity. Let me elaborate the design argument.

We essentially identify something is likely to be designed when such a thing has specific parts or specific systems arranged in specific ways that they perform specific functions.

E.G: A house.

So, humans as can be observed have specific parts and systems arranged in highly specific intricate ways (arguably more intricate and precise than any of our designs) that performs specific functions - therefore, is more likely to be designed than not.

I think its fairer that i elaborated the design argument because it would be easier to refute an argument when you oversimplify it.

The bible or Quran isn't necessarily the benchmark for the design argument. What if the person you are arguing with shows you his argument as I logically outlined and makes it clear he or she isn't basing his argument on any specific religious text or even a specific deity?

hakeem4:


If you’re being honest you’d know evolution has been tested and it’s a scientific fact just like heat from sun is also a scientific fact

I do not want to turn this place to a biology class. So I actually expected people to read up on this. But since you’ve asked me to explain then I’d have to.

So what is a fossil? A fossil is the preserved remains of a dead organism from millions of years ago. Evidence for the first form of life were given by fossils.

Like I have an example while I was discussing with capslocked the laryngeal nerve and many other examples

Thank you. Then if natural selection isn’t true then it would be the greatest conspiracy theory ever.

I’m particularly going to create a thread about this. Thank you for elaborating it. There are evidence for millions of complex life that came from natural processes but there’s no evidence of a single life designed.

DoctorAlien:
I don't speak Latin But I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by God.

Primarily because the Bible says so. I believe that the Bible contains truth. The Bible informs my belief. Observations seems to agree with, and solidify, it.

I think the best way for me to answer this is to say that if the evidences come, I will recognize them.

But a good place to start is to try to show that the Bible is dubious (both in its origin and in what it teaches).

Can I really list all of them right now? [url]Creation.com[/url] I believe is doing a good job of documenting them.

The primary reason, not exactly, the "only" reason.

I admit that my worldview is creationism. It is based on the Bible. Through that lens I look at things. This does not mean that I am not able to receive other people's arguments on their merits, and critically examine them.

But when the only thing that clashes is the worldview, I take the side of creationism. Thus, the geologic column may serve as evidence of evolution to some, but it may as evidence of Noah's flood for me.

Other people have other worldviews, like materialism, naturalism, etc. And if creationism is dogmatic, these other worldviews are just as, if not more, dogmatic.

Deductions have certain starting assumptions. Those assumptions have roots. I have only been very candid with my views. Suffice it to say that my worldview in no way prevents me from engaging the real world which we observe. But it may prevent me from taking a position that is built on a conflicting worldview.

jesusjnr:
My own belief is that it's neither here nor there but a combination of both evolution and design with respect to how humans first came into existence and how their lives has panned out since then.

So maybe you have a first right there.

But in my own belief, the evolution theory only comes up after the design theory.

God bless.

johnydon22:
Lol No. A theory is the most logical or deductive explanation for observed facts.

Evolution is the theory that explains the facts, that's what a scientific theory means.

So, what fossil records made you agree that life forms changed from one form to another?

jesusjnr:
My own belief is that it's neither here nor there but a combination of both evolution and design with respect to how humans first came into existence and how their lives has panned out since then.

So maybe you have a first right there.

But in my own belief, the evolution theory only comes up after the design theory.

God bless.

johnydon22:
Let me hold the fort.

Perceived flaws don't really preclude the presence of design.

You can argue a car is flawed, it definitely isn't perfect, this surely doesn't make it less likely to be designed.

Does it?

CAPSLOCKED:


THE CAR DESIGNER IS NOT HAILED AS PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, OMNI-THIS AND OMNI-THAT.

GUY SOMETIMES YOUR COMPARISONS ARE MEANINGLESS.

hakeem4:

Evolution is a fact natural selection is the scientific theory


Trilobite, etc. They are many I cannot remember them off hand

FOLYKAZE:
Evolution and Intelligent Design both have no tangible evidence.

johnydon22:
Ex nihilo. Lol. So something can come out of nothing then?

That's weird

1. You believe the Bible contains truth therefore whatever the bible says must be true.

That's devoid of any logical chain of thought.

Wouldn't real knowledge transcend belief as a background

and allow questions to be answered based on verifiable qualities of its method and not because this thing right here says it is so and i believe this is so and therefore it is so.

Doesn't this lead to a form of circular reasoning? Example: I believe this Batman vs Superman comic to be true, this comic book says someone can shoot laser from his eyes, therefore this must be true.

Do you still a problem with this?

2. Outline some of these observations.

I'm not sure you can recognize something except you have an idea of what exactly you are looking for.

But the problem is, your attachment is based on belief, how can someone effectively show that the Bible isn't true when belief bypasses the importance of the subject of belief being true?

1 or 2 doesn't hurt.

Doesn't this primary reason belief necessitate dogma?

I think this demonstrates the problem with belief, it gives you a lense by which you look at things and if the primary basis (subject of belief) is untrue, the whole chain is likewise untrue. But you can't really explore this since the subject isn't held as truth by some deductive means of determining what is most likely to be true, but rather an exercise of trust on the conveyor of the subject hence belief.

Dogma is demonstrated when your fundamental reason is based on belief on the conveyor of the subject.

Argument of design can/cannot be a dogma
Materialism/naturalism likewise.

It depends really and how your train of thought starts.

If it starts by assuming the conveyor of the idea is true then it is a dogma.

I actually admire your honesty about your view

johnydon22:


What's your idea then? Any alternative?

johnydon22:


1. So, the universe to you was created ex materia (cosmos from chaos) and not ex nihilo?

2. What makes you think the earth or universe is 6,000 years? Any external pointers that informed this belief?

3. What evidences would you expect could make you understand earth isn't just 6000 years?

What observations?




So, your only reason to believe in creationism is the bible and because you believe the bible is true.

Doesn't this belief effectively result in a form of bias against ideas that question this belief?

Because as you have shown, your agreement is built on primarily belief ground not any form of deductive logical chain of thoughts

That's pretty weak argument to be honest.

Read my argument to hakeem4 to see the fundamental argument for design

shadeyinka:

I don't know where you got this from BUT the earth nor the Universe isn't 6000 years old. It is far much older!

DoctorAlien:
Okay here we go.

I subscribe to creationism, and in particular Biblical creationism. I believe that the universe which we observe was created by God in 6 literal days, as Genesis describes. (Is this my view classified under intelligent design (ID))? Therefore, because of the Biblical account, this earth, and this universe which we observe, cannot be more than about 6000 years old.

I hold this view first and foremost because the Bible teaches it. Yes! That is the primary reason why I hold this view. I believe that the Bible contains truth. Therefore what it says about origins is true. The second reason is that observations seem to agree, and is not at odds, with what the Bible said about the universe, and with what would be expected if the Biblical narrative is true.

I think other views of origins are wrong primarily because they don't agree with the Bible, which, I believe, contains truth.

johnydon22:
You don't know where i got it from? It was right there on DoctorAliens comment i quoted. Jesus!

See where i got it now?