thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Stunning evidence for an intelligent designer! No intelligent designer puts a recreation center next door to a sewage treatment plant.
cdowis Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) No intelligent designer puts a recreation center next door to a sewage treatment plant. Ah, yes, the brilliant argument ==>>"If I were God, I would do it differently. Ergo there is no God." A corollary argument, "I do not understand why God would do such things. Ergo, no God." This is the foundation argument for Dawkins, et al. One response is "Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense in my reality. Ergo....." Edited April 30, 2014 by cdowis 1
CV75 Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Microcondial DNA proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. And all DNA, along with everything living and nonliving, shares a common ancestor (light). I'm not sure what the big deal is.
Rob Osborn Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 More than you think. About 80% of all DNA is concerned with the functioning of a single cell. We metabolize sugars the exact same way. Okay, so you are thus saying that the other 20% of the human and the 20% of the banana are completely different or still 50% the same?
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Okay, so you are thus saying that the other 20% of the human and the 20% of the banana are completely different or still 50% the same? 80% is still the same. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Ah, yes, the brilliant argument ==>>"If I were God, I would do it differently. Ergo there is no God." A corollary argument, "I do not understand why God would do such things. Ergo, no God." This is the foundation argument for Dawkins, et al. One response is "Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense in my reality. Ergo....." I never said there was no God. But arguments from design are not worth much in science. How would we know if God did it any differently?
ERayR Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 No intelligent designer puts a recreation center next door to a sewage treatment plant. Diversion with inane comments and ridicule. SOP carry on.
ERayR Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 I never said there was no God. But arguments from design are not worth much in science. How would we know if God did it any differently? Ah yes we are going to scientifically look for evidence of New York City so we draw a north-south line through the center of the country and we will only look west of the line as we have decided to refuse to consider any evidence coming from the east. Makes sense to me.
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Ah yes we are going to scientifically look for evidence of New York City so we draw a north-south line through the center of the country and we will only look west of the line as we have decided to refuse to consider any evidence coming from the east. Makes sense to me.New Amsterdam is obviously of human construction.
longview Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 an illustration of co-dependent evolution . . . https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience/photos/a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035/811064962247850/?type=1 (warning: one humorous use of the f word)
thesometimesaint Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 an illustration of co-dependent evolution . . . https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience/photos/a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035/811064962247850/?type=1 (warning: one humorous use of the f word) Humorous yes, Accurate not so much.
Rob Osborn Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Humorous yes, Accurate not so much. Yeah, turns out evolutionists are getting away from Darwinian theory for giraffe evolution. Bottom line- they don't have a clue and just throw out random ideas as old theories don't pan out. Giraffe evolution is a joke.
cdowis Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Yeah, turns out evolutionists are getting away from Darwinian theory for giraffe evolution. Bottom line- they don't have a clue and just throw out random ideas as old theories don't pan out. Giraffe evolution is a joke. This is based on the theory of Lamarck, which is denounced by Darwinists.
bcuzbcuz Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Yeah, turns out evolutionists are getting away from Darwinian theory for giraffe evolution. Bottom line- they don't have a clue and just throw out random ideas as old theories don't pan out. Giraffe evolution is a joke.And your reference is.......?
cdowis Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 As a matter of protocol, you cannot request a CFR on an opinion. He is clearly expressing his opinion, so his reference is ==>> himself.
Rob Osborn Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 And your reference is.......? heres a nice read- http://www.wired.com/2010/09/giraffes-necks-for-food-or-necks-for-sex/
The Nehor Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Yeah, turns out evolutionists are getting away from Darwinian theory for giraffe evolution. Bottom line- they don't have a clue and just throw out random ideas as old theories don't pan out. Giraffe evolution is a joke. Of course they have the advantage as the "random ideas" they throw out are not empirically false like those of the Creationists who try to fit the whole of living history into 6000 years.
Rob Osborn Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Of course they have the advantage as the "random ideas" they throw out are not empirically false like those of the Creationists who try to fit the whole of living history into 6000 years. False on what premise? I hear a lot of conjecture but nothing of substantial worth to say life has been around longer than 6,000 years.
The Nehor Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 False on what premise? I hear a lot of conjecture but nothing of substantial worth to say life has been around longer than 6,000 years. This is why you have not heard anything:
ERayR Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Of course they have the advantage as the "random ideas" they throw out are not empirically false like those of the Creationists who try to fit the whole of living history into 6000 years. There are creationists who subscribe to the 6,000 year timeline and there are those that do not. Those of us who do not resent having to constantly be expected to defend the 6,000 year mantra.
Rob Osborn Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 This is why you have not heard anything: Got my head stuck there because of all the BS floating in the air!
thesometimesaint Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Yeah, turns out evolutionists are getting away from Darwinian theory for giraffe evolution. Bottom line- they don't have a clue and just throw out random ideas as old theories don't pan out. Giraffe evolution is a joke.No they're not.
thesometimesaint Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 There are creationists who subscribe to the 6,000 year timeline and there are those that do not. Those of us who do not resent having to constantly be expected to defend the 6,000 year mantra.There are probably as many different types of Creationism as there are creationists to espouse them. NONE of them hold up in science. However when the main pushers of Creationism posit the idea that the universe is 6-7000 thousand years old. Take it up with them.
Rob Osborn Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 There are probably as many different types of Creationism as there are creationists to espouse them. NONE of them hold up in science. However when the main pushers of Creationism posit the idea that the universe is 6-7000 thousand years old. Take it up with them. Mere biased conjecture.
thesometimesaint Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Mere biased conjecture. More obtuse idiosyncratic definitions of words.
Recommended Posts