Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[Angilion]

Where did these photosensitive cells originate from?

You don't have a counter-argument to the vast amount of evidence presented for you to observe, so you ignore it and move the goalposts to a different question.

In some other time and some other place, you will switch to your previous question.

You don't want answers to your questions. You just want to spread lies about there not being answers, knowing that if you do so often enough you will catch some people who haven't seen the answers and are therefore vulnerable to your propaganda.

You're not even honest enough to be open about your faith. You pretend it's scientific, as a disguise so you can leech off science.

Now you can claim that nobody can answer your question, despite the fact that you will have already seen the answer.

 

[kedge]

That is a MASSIVE contradiction. You cannot adhere to the scientific method of observation and believe in a creator. There is absolutely zero scientific proof of a creator.

The scientific method supports my worldview, for example life begets life this is a fact, it is called biogenesis and this natural law has never been refuted, it stands. I believe that the first life was/is God, God is the first cause. The natural law of cause and effect is a universal law it is inescapable truth, the scientific method proves this as a law/truth, i believe that everything in our universe was caused by God but i nor anyone can show you God in person, i p[ersonally would not want to see God, He is too powerfull, his Holy radiance would probably kill me, i can''t even look at the sun in the summer time without squinting so i should imagine that the light that would shine from the Creator is too much for man to observe by the eye. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method and God, it is Evolution that is incompatible with God and the Bible.

It has been constantly said in this thread that micro evolution is no different to macro evolution, it is simply on a smaller time scale. What do you mean by a higher order?.

Some would say that Macro-Evolution is different from Micro-, macro means larger or higher or above. Micro changes have been observed in species but only within the species boundaries and limitations, no one has ever observed a species evolving into another species, meaning above the species. For example, no one has ever seen a monkey or ape like creature evolve into a human being, no one has ever observed bacteria evolving into something higher than bacteria. Simply put you don't see one animal changing into another completely different animal.

 

[Urgannagru]

You're correct, it is only the creative imagination of the artist/s who think that is probably what they would have looked like, but again there should be lots of evidence in the fossil record, it would help imho. Experts? i don't know about that to be honest with you.

Yes but you did notice the bit where I wrote that traces of feathers have been found in these fossils? The picture is still based around the dimensions and structure of the fossil including the traces of feathers and scales found on the fossil. Granted the coluration and some of the surface details where inferred by the artist.

For me that is questionable evidence, i don't believe that but if someone does want to then that is there choice, everybody is entitled to a belief system and an opinion.

Yes everyones entitled to an opinion but that doesn't make there opinions correct.

It looks just like a bird to me in all honesty.

Yes that because its closer to modern birds that the other examples I put the image there so you could compare its features to the earlier examples.

 

[Shayper]

You don't have a counter-argument to the vast amount of evidence presented for you to observe, so you ignore it and move the goalposts to a different question.

In some other time and some other place, you will switch to your previous question.

You don't want answers to your questions. You just want to spread lies about there not being answers, knowing that if you do so often enough you will catch some people who haven't seen the answers and are therefore vulnerable to your propaganda.

You're not even honest enough to be open about your faith. You pretend it's scientific, as a disguise so you can leech off science.

Now you can claim that nobody can answer your question, despite the fact that you will have already seen the answer.

I'm going to have to agree with this unfortunately.

 

[Urgannagru]

There is no such thing as devolution in biology. It's still evolution, even if the animal simplifies or gains something superfluous.

He's talking about something he knows nothing about again.

Thanks I appreciate that however I was trying to give him a chance to speak for himself. After all this might be a new concept that neither of us has heard of. Unlikely, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

 

[kedge]

But when the first eyes evolved they were much less complex, requiring much less complex parts to be developed at the same time, no?

Without actually observing this it has to be assumed, that is all i'm saying really, that''s your belief but it isn't mine though. If it cannot be proved using the scientific method then it has to be assumed it happened.

 

[The Running Man]

The scientific method supports my worldview, for example life begets life this is a fact, it is called biogenesis and this natural law has never been refuted, it stands. I believe that the first life was/is God, God is the first cause. The natural law of cause and effect is a universal law it is inescapable truth, the scientific method proves this as a law/truth, i believe that everything in our universe was caused by God but i nor anyone can show you God in person, i p[ersonally would not want to see God, He is too powerfull, his Holy radiance would probably kill me, i can''t even look at the sun in the summer time without squinting so i should imagine that the light that would shine from the Creator is too much for man to observe by the eye. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method and God, it is Evolution that is incompatible with God and the Bible.

What leads you to believe a creator is any more holy than he is purely scientific, and that we are a subject of his experiment?

it is Evolution that is incompatible with God and the Bible.

It actually isn't, as the pope has suggested. it is just your unwavering and unfairly formed view that it is incompatible..

 

[Castiel]

Without actually observing this it has to be assumed, that is all i'm saying really, that''s your belief but it isn't mine though. If it cannot be proved using the scientific method then it has to be assumed it happened.

Not assumed, but inferred. There is a significant and real difference.

 

[The Running Man]

Without actually observing this it has to be assumed, that is all i'm saying really, that''s your belief but it isn't mine though. If it cannot be proved using the scientific method then it has to be assumed it happened.

But that is proven...The first eyes weren't eyeball and retina but no brain?

They were simple systems as we have already described and shown you in pictorial format to make it easier for you to understand...

 

[Shayper]

Not assumed, but inferred. There is a significant and real difference.

Beaten again

Edit:

To give a clear example of this, just for posterity:

1+1=2 is a fact, and can be proven. This infers that 2+1=3. This is not an assumption, this is proved by the mathematics used to prove that 1+1=2. This is what is known is inferring, which I hope you can tell is not the same as assumption.

 

[Nitefly]

No one has ever observed a species evolving into another species.

Well, that's just blatantly not true. There's many examples of polyploidisation and hybridisation, most obvious example that springs to mind is Oxford Ragwort (Senecio squalidus).

Queue [edit - awesome spelling] a debate on what a species actually is, unsurprisingly with you sticking to your incorrect definition that supports your own opinion...

 

[kedge]

You don't want answers to your questions. You just want to spread lies about there not being answers.

I don't expect anything really, i'm saying that the general public have the right to use critical thinking skills and be informed of the truth about the scientific method of enquiry, also you do provide answers i never said you didn't i encourage individuals to question those answers, that is all.

 

[The Running Man]

I don't expect anything really, i'm saying that the general public have the right to use critical thinking skills and be informed of the truth about the scientific method of enquiry, also you do provide answers i never said you didn't i encourage individuals to question those answers, that is all.

Believing closed book in a story from the bible without considering other possibilities is about as uncritical as thinking can get i'm afraid. Especially as the bible hasn't even been shown to be remotely accurate in any aspect..

 

[Shayper]

Believing closed book in a story from the bible without considering other possibilities is about as uncritical as thinking can get i'm afraid. Especially as the bible hasn't even been shown to be remotely accurate in any aspect..

Aye. It's a bit hypocritical of yourself, Kedge, to tell people to question answers when you yourself believe in something absolutely with no questioning.

 

[The Running Man]

We all know exactly what the bible says and what the connotations are. we understand it. We just don't necessarily agree with it.

On the other hand, you (kedge, Jason2, other guy) disagree with established theories like evolution, despite showing a complete lack of understanding in what it is and what it means.

Perhaps if you tried, on your own, without us to spoon feed you information tried to learn and understand the sources -instead of throwing up huge barriers to the basic ideas then maybe you could be able to draw from a more varied source to form your opinion.

 

[kedge]

You're not even honest enough to be open about your faith. You pretend it's scientific, as a disguise so you can leech off science.

I have told you what i believe, i believe there is a God, no one else has to believe that and it does not bother me in any way if they do or don't, i can't be any more honest than that can i. I adhere to the scientific method, some natural and universal laws support my worldview and i have pointed this out. Science is knowledge not a magic wand of sorts.

 

[Robosapien]

Where did these photosensitive cells originate from?

Chemical reactions 'need' energy. Natural selection 'favours' matter which has randomly assembled into structures that can harness energy to feed these reactions, and over time further favours reactions that has given rise to organic matter that has mechanisms that result in some high degree of self-propogation/replication, or sustainability over a certain time period, relative to it's immediate environment. Beyond this, change in environments may mean certain chains terminate whilst others carry on, so a low degree of randomness in the copying mechanism seems to be favoured too. Over a huge time period, this gives rise to lots of organic material and life is a small part of that,

 

[kedge]

It actually isn't, as the pope has suggested.

I don't listen or follow this imperfect human being, he is nothing to me personally, i would even say the pope is a worker of satan.

 

[Somnambulist]

I find it genuinely hilarious these people can happily accept the marvels of human endeavour and investigation in physics, chemistry, engineering etc, that lead to the creation of their computers and the internet, that then allow them post their (wilful?) ignorance online, but can't/won't accept we're equally as handy when it comes to investigating biology and the history of life on Earth as well. We can manufacture things on a micro, atomic and even nano-scale, split the atom, smash sub-atomic particles together at near light speed and observe what happens, stick things, even people into orbit and peer at the universe in all it's vast, ancient glory, but when it comes to studying biology we're apparently just making it up - yes, obviously, better stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Spose the simple answer is that when your house is made from cards, even pulling one out will bring it all crashing down, so no ground can ever be conceded, even on apparently trivial things that contribute to the fact that while we may be human, we're still just animals.

 

[The Running Man]

I have told you what i believe, i believe there is a God, no one else has to believe that and it does not bother me in any way if they do or don't, i can't be any more honest than that can i. I adhere to the scientific method, some natural and universal laws support my worldview and i have pointed this out. Science is knowledge not a magic wand of sorts.

Answer my question please,

would you believe in creation in 6 days and a 6000 year old earth plus adam and eve story - based upon observation only - if you had not read the bible.

I.e a time before you read genesis, did you already conclude that the initial 'beginning' was as genesis stated?