A few question's for atheists ?

[Skull Pilot]

Oh no skull don't do it,do you really think our body was created for combat ?

I think I just said our bodies are poorly designed for combat not to mention poorly designed in general.

Do you really think more protection around the vitals would protect us from armour piercing bullets or an m-50 attack,how bout grenades ? or maybe mines ? Just lose gracefully my friend. To answer your question i spent 6 years in the army but it was at a time when carter screwed up the resue of the hostages in Iran so no war time.

There you go confusing technology with physical prowess again.

Let me make it simple for you

Guns, bullets and bombs are relatively new technologies. We evolved naked in the wilderness. Our physical evolution was a series of quick fixes which gave successive generations very small advantages over older generations. These mutations all happened without being integrated into a plan which is why we have physical weaknesses like our backs, knees etc.

If you had to enter combat naked you would indeed find your body to be extremely vulnerable to injury compared to any other animal.

Billions of years another leap of faith.

Think what you like skull,i presented why what you say is not possible but you go ahead and let them spoon feed you this junk they call science.

We were not designed to be a predator got it ? or fend off a predator unless we have weapons.

This not what God intended for mann and beast.

Oh you're one of those who thinks the earth is a few thousand years old?

I guess atomic decay rates and other proven scientific fact are false too. Tell me do you go to a doctor or do you merely pray over a dying child?

You believe that a god just plopped us down here with weapons to hunt and armor to protect us?

Yeah that makes way more sense than geology, anthropology, chemistry and physics.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if we are physically weaker does this mean the goalposts are moving ?

That is an arguement against evolution if we are gonna gain new and benficial information would not Natural selection made sure we maintained that physical strength and or land speed or that superior eye sight if we are a product of macro-evolution ?

Natural selection does what i said it does and it does not do as the Neo-darwinian would have you believe.

What goal posts. It is a fact that we are physically weak. Our bodies are poorly designed and are injured very easily.

And the point is that we never had superior strength or eyesight. The advantages we had in an evolutionary game were that we mutated to compensate for weakness not to overcome it.

The poor design elements of the human body prove that. We as humans have the most fatal baby delivery design of all the animals on the planet. In fact before advances in medicine more woman died in child birth than any other way. You're telling me your god intended this? If your god really wanted you to go forth and multiply then why not design a woman's pelvis to accommodate child bearing with less danger?

Or is it more likely that we evolved larger craniums in respect to body size and that made child birth dangerous. The adaptation to accommodate a babies larger cranium like the fontanelles that allow the bony plates of the skull to move are imperfect at best but just good enough to give us an edge.

oh boy, i am not gonna beat a dead horse.

And you totally blew off my question why didn't Natural Selection make sure we maintained the superior strength,superior eyesight,and superior land speed ,if we evolved ?

You're assuming we evolved from creatures that had superior strength etc.

Not a valid assumption at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What don't you understand about the term "physically weakest"

We are very physically weak compared to any other animal on this planet. Don't confuse technological advances with physical prowess.

So what if we are physically weaker does this mean the goalposts are moving ?

That is an arguement against evolution if we are gonna gain new and benficial information would not Natural selection made sure we maintained that physical strength and or land speed or that superior eye sight if we are a product of macro-evolution ?

Natural selection does what i said it does and it does not do as the Neo-darwinian would have you believe.

What goal posts. It is a fact that we are physically weak. Our bodies are poorly designed and are injured very easily.

And the point is that we never had superior strength or eyesight. The advantages we had in an evolutionary game were that we mutated to compensate for weakness not to overcome it.

The poor design elements of the human body prove that. We as humans have the most fatal baby delivery design of all the animals on the planet. In fact before advances in medicine more woman died in child birth than any other way. You're telling me your god intended this? If your god really wanted you to go forth and multiply then why not design a woman's pelvis to accommodate child bearing with less danger?

Or is it more likely that we evolved larger craniums in respect to body size and that made child birth dangerous. The adaptation to accommodate a babies larger cranium like the fontanelles that allow the bony plates of the skull to move are imperfect at best but just good enough to give us an edge.

How can you say such a thing after so many billions of children were born with no problems at all. It's like you are desperate to find an excuse not to admit to an intelligent creator. Ever since sin entered GAod promised a rough time even with child bearing.

You can blame that on eve.

Gen 3:16

(ASV) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(BBE) To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your maste

Skull not to get personal, but you have done a poor job in trying to make like the human body is a poor design.

Thank God most people have a different view about our creator and the magnificent Job he did in creating.

Some day maybe you will wake and see the same beautiful life i have had the chance to live.

I have been to some of the most beautiful places on this planet and i was struck with awe.

I can only imagine what this planet will be like someday but it probably blow our minds.

If you really wanted to see creation you could, design surrounds you not an Non-intelligent Non-thinking process. Everything that pertains to this planet and life was definitely a product of design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think I just said our bodies are poorly designed for combat not to mention poorly designed in general.



There you go confusing technology with physical prowess again.

Let me make it simple for you

Guns, bullets and bombs are relatively new technologies. We evolved naked in the wilderness. Our physical evolution was a series of quick fixes which gave successive generations very small advantages over older generations. These mutations all happened without being integrated into a plan which is why we have physical weaknesses like our backs, knees etc.

If you had to enter combat naked you would indeed find your body to be extremely vulnerable to injury compared to any other animal.

Billions of years another leap of faith.

Think what you like skull,i presented why what you say is not possible but you go ahead and let them spoon feed you this junk they call science.

We were not designed to be a predator got it ? or fend off a predator unless we have weapons.

This not what God intended for mann and beast.

Oh you're one of those who thinks the earth is a few thousand years old?

I guess atomic decay rates and other proven scientific fact are false too. Tell me do you go to a doctor or do you merely pray over a dying child?

You believe that a god just plopped down here with weapons to hunt and armor to protect us?

Yeah that makes way more sense than geology, anthropology, chemistry and physics.

You really believe they can be accurate in determning the actual age of the earth ?

Have you ever read the problems with the dating methods they use ? hardly reliable.

Video just for you.

18-Old Earth Brainwashing

Professor Brown

"Carbon 14 dating presently shows very good promise for fitting into the Creation paradigm. Even the oldest fossils on Earth contain a remainder of Carbon 14. Either there has been wide-spread contamination, or the Earth is not as old as was originally thought. Evidence is against the contamination idea. "


"While most other dating mechanisms date the rock surrounding fossils. Both Amino acid and Carbon 14 dating methods, date the actual fossil itself. However there is evidence concerning the racemization of various amino acids to suggest that the variation of amino acid levels found in fossils is due to factors such as heat and not their differences in ages."

 

[Youwerecreated]

What goal posts. It is a fact that we are physically weak. Our bodies are poorly designed and are injured very easily.

And the point is that we never had superior strength or eyesight. The advantages we had in an evolutionary game were that we mutated to compensate for weakness not to overcome it.

The poor design elements of the human body prove that. We as humans have the most fatal baby delivery design of all the animals on the planet. In fact before advances in medicine more woman died in child birth than any other way. You're telling me your god intended this? If your god really wanted you to go forth and multiply then why not design a woman's pelvis to accommodate child bearing with less danger?

Or is it more likely that we evolved larger craniums in respect to body size and that made child birth dangerous. The adaptation to accommodate a babies larger cranium like the fontanelles that allow the bony plates of the skull to move are imperfect at best but just good enough to give us an edge.

oh boy, i am not gonna beat a dead horse.

And you totally blew off my question why didn't Natural Selection make sure we maintained the superior strength,superior eyesight,and superior land speed ,if we evolved ?

You're assuming we evolved from creatures that had superior strength etc.

Not a valid assumption at all.

No why would those features be targeted by Natural Selection? it makes no sense with what you say Natural Slection does. I have already explained why most mutations will be deleted after a few generations unless both parents carry the same defective Gene.

It is a faulty view to assume a mutation can take over a Gene pool that is rediculous.

Here, since you don't trust me, read what fellow evolutionist has to say about your view.

Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

© 2001 L.M. Spetner. All Rights Reserved.

fter I posted my critique of Edward E. Max’s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses. The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue. The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments. I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon. My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS".

Introduction
Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word “justification” in Spetner’s sentence “But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species. Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence—i.e., a complete list of those mutations—that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS: MAX’S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION. I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST “OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS” REQUIRED FOR NDT. I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS. AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT. MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION. THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION. THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is “obliged” to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to “proof.” Although Spetner denies that he is “obliged to prove a non-existence” of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS: RIGHT. EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT. I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE. BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the “creationist” argument against evolution. Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting. If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max’s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.


The B-Cell Hypermutation Model
Max: The next major point of discussion in the correspondence has been about how well the model of immunoglobulin gene somatic hypermutation in B cells serves as an analog to genomic mutation in evolution. The following section contains the salient points of our exchange about this question, beginning with Spetner’s initial response to my essay on Talk.Origins.

Spetner: Max’s pièce de résistance was the somatic mutations in B lymphocytes (B cells) of the vertebrate immune system as examples of random mutations that add information. He implied that Evolution could follow this method to achieve baboons from bacteria. I agree with him that these mutations add information to the B-cell genome. I also agree that they are random, but they are random only in the base changes they make; they are not random in where in the genome they can occur. More important, I do not agree that the grand sweep of evolution could be achieved through such mutations.

Although the somatic mutations to which Max referred are point mutations that do indeed add information to the genome of the B cells, they cannot be applied to Darwinian evolution. These are not the kind of mutations that can operate as the random mutations required by NDT that can, through chance errors, build information one base change at a time.

For one thing, the rate of the somatic mutations in the immune system is extremely high - more than a million times normal mutation rates. For this reason they are called hypermutations. If an organism had a mutation rate that was even a small fraction of this rate it could not survive. For a second thing, the hypermutations in the B cells are restricted to a specific tiny portion of the genome, where they can do no harm but only good. The entire genome of the B cell could not mutate at this rate; the hypermutation must be restricted only to the portion that encodes selected portions of the variable part of the antibody.

The mutation rate of the hypermutating part of the B cell’s genome is about one per thousand base pairs per replication (Darnell et al., 1986, Molecular Cell Biology, Scientific American Books, p. 1116.), and it can be as high as one in 500 base pairs per replication (Shen, 1998 Science 280: 1750). These rates are incompatible with Darwinian evolution. If an organism’s genome were to mutate at this rate, there would be, on the average, about one mutation in every gene, with a high probability that many of them would be fatal for the organism. No, Darwinian evolution could not occur with such rates.

These high rates are essential for the working of the immune system. In each replication of a B cell, about 30 of the 300 or so gene regions encoding the CDR’s will have a mutation. A lower mutation rate would make for a less efficient immune system. The high mutation rates, so necessary for the immune system, if applied to an entire organism for evolutionary purposes, would be fatal many times over.

Note that these hypermutations are limited to a restricted portion of the genome. Moreover, the hypermutations are mediated by special enzymes. Thus, although the hypermutations are random in the changes they make in the bases of the genome, they are not random in the positions in which they occur. They occur only in the small region in which they are needed, and occur there through enzymes that apparently play only that role. Furthermore, they occur only when they are switched on by the controlling mechanism of B-cell maturation. Thus it is clear that the hypermutations in B cells cannot serve as a prototype for the random mutations required for NDT.

Please read rest of article here,DR Spetner. totally blows the theory you're defending out of the water.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

 

[Skull Pilot]

Scholar deems human body as

Hafer describes the Intelligent Design debate as purely a political issue, and one that has no place in science. The objective of her talk, she stated, was to show how the human body is quite an unintelligent design, and therefore evolution is the only substantial scientific theory.

To grab the audience's attention, Hafer began with the issue of why males' testicles are outside of their body; because normal body temperature is not conducive to sperm production.

"This is a very bad design," Hafer says with emphasis.

Using the diagram of a frog, she pointed out that other animals have reproductive necessities inside their bodies, a much more intelligent place to have them.

Next, she brought up the simple fact that babies' heads are too large to fit through the narrow biped pelvis bones during birth. Prior to modern medicine, this resulted in many deaths of babies and mothers, and is clearly a poor design. Hafer offered that it would have been smarter to be like kangaroos and develop outside of our mothers.

"Now I'll stop talking dirty to you and talk about choking instead," Hafer said to snickers from the audience.

She transitioned into explaining that whales' respiratory systems are better than ours because they have separate tubes for breathing and eating. This way, there are no chances of choking on food while inhaling the way that humans do.

Another mechanical mishap is how the design of our eyes actually impedes our sight because the "wiring" of nerves is placed in front of the photoreceptors. These photoreceptors are crucial because they recognize light and discern the world around us. If other animals, such as the cuddle fish, can have the wiring in the back, why is ours in the front? It seems like a poor choice, unless "the creator', as Hafer called it, which intelligent design points to, favors squids and octopi over humans.

Scott Conroy 6th-semester molecular and cell biology major, offered a possible explanation. He said, "Cuddle fish would need a more developed eye to see in low light conditions, where being in direct way of the sun, it might be more protective for us to have the receptors behind."

Hafer disagreed, saying that it was just the way sight developed in our evolutionary line.

Evolution, she argues, has a much lower standard than intellectual design because "as long as it doesn't kill us before reproducing too much of the time," the trait stays. This explains our appendices, neonatal gills and remnants of tails.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Scholar deems human body as

Hafer describes the Intelligent Design debate as purely a political issue, and one that has no place in science. The objective of her talk, she stated, was to show how the human body is quite an unintelligent design, and therefore evolution is the only substantial scientific theory.

To grab the audience's attention, Hafer began with the issue of why males' testicles are outside of their body; because normal body temperature is not conducive to sperm production.

"This is a very bad design," Hafer says with emphasis.

Using the diagram of a frog, she pointed out that other animals have reproductive necessities inside their bodies, a much more intelligent place to have them.

Next, she brought up the simple fact that babies' heads are too large to fit through the narrow biped pelvis bones during birth. Prior to modern medicine, this resulted in many deaths of babies and mothers, and is clearly a poor design. Hafer offered that it would have been smarter to be like kangaroos and develop outside of our mothers.

"Now I'll stop talking dirty to you and talk about choking instead," Hafer said to snickers from the audience.

She transitioned into explaining that whales' respiratory systems are better than ours because they have separate tubes for breathing and eating. This way, there are no chances of choking on food while inhaling the way that humans do.

Another mechanical mishap is how the design of our eyes actually impedes our sight because the "wiring" of nerves is placed in front of the photoreceptors. These photoreceptors are crucial because they recognize light and discern the world around us. If other animals, such as the cuddle fish, can have the wiring in the back, why is ours in the front? It seems like a poor choice, unless "the creator', as Hafer called it, which intelligent design points to, favors squids and octopi over humans.

Scott Conroy 6th-semester molecular and cell biology major, offered a possible explanation. He said, "Cuddle fish would need a more developed eye to see in low light conditions, where being in direct way of the sun, it might be more protective for us to have the receptors behind."

Hafer disagreed, saying that it was just the way sight developed in our evolutionary line.

Evolution, she argues, has a much lower standard than intellectual design because "as long as it doesn't kill us before reproducing too much of the time," the trait stays. This explains our appendices, neonatal gills and remnants of tails.

I guess even God has his critics.


How do the intricate design features of the human body rule out the possibility of evolution through “favorable mutations” over millions of years?
■The breath of life
■Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint (Technical)
■Design—“Man Computerised Thermostat”
■“Ear Ye, Ear Ye” (ICR Origins Issues)
■Electrical design in the human body
■Eye, Darwin vs the
■Eye for creation, An: An interview with eye-disease researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland
■The Hearing Ear
■Human Body, God’s Masterpiece
■Is Our “Inverted” Retina Really “Bad Design”? (Technical)
■Made in His Image: Breath of Life
■Mammals present some milky problems
■The miracle of tears
■More on God’s Amazing Designs, skin & hair (Dr David Menton, Sydney Supercamp 2001, 58 minutes)
■The Placenta
■Railroad wants monkey off its back
■Wonderfully Made: Design in Creation, the eye (Dr David Menton, Sydney Supercamp 2001, 1 hour)
■Your hearing: a powerful pointer to Go

Visit this article to get more details.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/design-features

 

[Skull Pilot]

Scholar deems human body as

Hafer describes the Intelligent Design debate as purely a political issue, and one that has no place in science. The objective of her talk, she stated, was to show how the human body is quite an unintelligent design, and therefore evolution is the only substantial scientific theory.

To grab the audience's attention, Hafer began with the issue of why males' testicles are outside of their body; because normal body temperature is not conducive to sperm production.

"This is a very bad design," Hafer says with emphasis.

Using the diagram of a frog, she pointed out that other animals have reproductive necessities inside their bodies, a much more intelligent place to have them.

Next, she brought up the simple fact that babies' heads are too large to fit through the narrow biped pelvis bones during birth. Prior to modern medicine, this resulted in many deaths of babies and mothers, and is clearly a poor design. Hafer offered that it would have been smarter to be like kangaroos and develop outside of our mothers.

"Now I'll stop talking dirty to you and talk about choking instead," Hafer said to snickers from the audience.

She transitioned into explaining that whales' respiratory systems are better than ours because they have separate tubes for breathing and eating. This way, there are no chances of choking on food while inhaling the way that humans do.

Another mechanical mishap is how the design of our eyes actually impedes our sight because the "wiring" of nerves is placed in front of the photoreceptors. These photoreceptors are crucial because they recognize light and discern the world around us. If other animals, such as the cuddle fish, can have the wiring in the back, why is ours in the front? It seems like a poor choice, unless "the creator', as Hafer called it, which intelligent design points to, favors squids and octopi over humans.

Scott Conroy 6th-semester molecular and cell biology major, offered a possible explanation. He said, "Cuddle fish would need a more developed eye to see in low light conditions, where being in direct way of the sun, it might be more protective for us to have the receptors behind."

Hafer disagreed, saying that it was just the way sight developed in our evolutionary line.

Evolution, she argues, has a much lower standard than intellectual design because "as long as it doesn't kill us before reproducing too much of the time," the trait stays. This explains our appendices, neonatal gills and remnants of tails.

I guess even God has his critics.

You can't criticize that which does not exist

 

[Yoda]

Why do most atheists defend Neo-darwinism when Neo-darwinism can't give a logical explanation supported by evidence as to the origins of life ?

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

Explain how that's sitting on the fence? In an eairlier post, you said yourself that the bible doesn't give the details? Why would it be so wrong to say that these scientfic theories are simply man's investigation into those details.

The whole "Science is the tool for man to find out how god created" Is a much better argument than anything you have posted so far.

If God is all knowing, as you suggest, then would he not have know that man would have investigated him at some point? Your bible says we were created in God's image. Wouldn't something created in God's image eventually strive to be like God? If we are God's children, would we not want to learn from our father? I know my children did. This isn't really a debate on the existance of a God or Evolution. As i've stated before, it's nature vs. nurture.

Religion is how you were Nurtured.
Science is an explination of Nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Scholar deems human body as

I guess even God has his critics.

You can't criticize that which does not exist

Can you prove it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

Explain how that's sitting on the fence? In an eairlier post, you said yourself that the bible doesn't give the details? Why would it be so wrong to say that these scientfic theories are simply man's investigation into those details.

The whole "Science is the tool for man to find out how god created" Is a much better argument than anything you have posted so far.

If God is all knowing, as you suggest, then would he not have know that man would have investigated him at some point? Your bible says we were created in God's image. Wouldn't something created in God's image eventually strive to be like God? If we are God's children, would we not want to learn from our father? I know my children did. This isn't really a debate on the existance of a God or Evolution. As i've stated before, it's nature vs. nurture.

Religion is how you were Nurtured.
Science is an explination of Nature.

Yes, he knew men would investigate him and his works.


1Ti 1:4

nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, that cause questions rather than the building up of God that is in faith


Did the Creator use evolution?
Did God use evolution to create man? This view creates more problems than it solves.First published:
Creation 11(2):38–40
March 1989

by Allan Rosser

At some time in your life, you have probably come across the three views which people hold as to how human life began.

The traditional idea of special creation by Almighty God—man made from the dust of the ground. This is the creationist position.
Evolution from non-living elements, up through endless development, through ape-like creatures, till finally human existence became different from ape existence. This is the atheistic evolutionist position.
A marriage of 1 and 2. God set evolution in progress and guided progress and guided the development, and so, in effect, created man. Therefore man is still responsible to his Creator, and the evolutionary scientist is also seen to be credible. This view is known as theistic evolution.
The third position, that of the theistic evolutionist, is common, yet is perhaps the most difficult to justify. Science textbooks, encyclopedias, and university science courses as a rule simply do not present theistic evolution as a serious option. The Bible’s account of creation has to be explained away, perhaps as a parable, or misconstrued history simply meant to teach some theological lesson.

So let us look at this widely held theistic evolution view, and see where a belief in it leads.

Million-year man from dust?
If the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, authoritative and correct, then the theistic evolutionist who ‘accepts’ the scriptural account of man’s creation does have to stretch it a little to say that man’s creation from dust just took millions of years through transforming life-forms. If it happened this way, God must have been deceiving us when He said He made man from dust. What prevented Him from telling it like it was?

The fact that death came by one man, Adam (Romans 5:12), is a serious challenge to theistic evolution, as many creatures already would have died in the evolutionary process. The death that came through Adam was two-fold, even as Christ’s death was twofold:

physical death and
spiritual death—separation from God.
It was from physical death that Jesus rose. Let us not think that this death that Adam brought in was only spiritual. The result of his sin was that he was not allowed to eat of the tree of life. As a result of this, he died physically many years later. Chapter 5 of Genesis tells us ‘And he died …’ some eight times, no doubt to emphasize the consequences of Adam’s sin.

As some degree of apeman, Adam was going to die, so what was the use of God’s warning to Adam, ‘In the day you eat of it, dying you will die’? (literal translation). Did God give Adam the ability to live for ever and then after Adam’s sin take it away?

In Scripture we read ‘for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22, 23). If Adam was the end of the evolutionary line, then thousands of evolving men had already died, and death did not come by Adam. Chapter 15 also tells of the second Adam, who was Christ. If the first Adam ‘ex–apeman’ was as real a person as the second Adam, then there came a day when God must have said: ‘You are of this moment man, Adam!’

Apeman’s mates?
Suddenly, everything was different. Now he is sinless and can sin, but as an ‘apeman’ or part ‘ape-like creature’ he couldn’t have sinned. Now he couldn’t take the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or he would be sinning, and would die. A moment ago there were no restrictions; now there are. For years he had gone without clothes, and of course he would not have been ashamed. But now he is a man. When did he lose his ape hair? A moment ago he had mates, now he has none!

If we make some allowances and jump these hurdles, the women of that day would present a problem. Let us set the stage again. If the theistic evolutionist believes Adam to be descended from ape-like creatures, but a creation of God, then what about the woman Eve? If Adam was a theistic evolution ‘creation’—a literal, though stretched, interpretation of the Genesis account—then what about Eve? God Himself said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone’.

What an incredible situation: Adam’s mother and father, sissy and brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces, and his grandparents, perhaps, were all around him, and he was lonely! Maybe God left them out of Eden, or was this first man ‘called out’ even as Abraham was in Genesis chapter 12?

Animal relatives?
God brought all the animals before Adam, and the Bible recounts that there was not found among the animals a suitable mate or helper for Adam. Did all the animals not include his mother and father, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces, and his grandparents? Did God only bring a couple of every kind of animal and did he leave Adam’s relatives out? Why couldn’t he marry one of them? What was wrong with one of his distant relatives, or the closer ones?

Even if, amazingly, only one family had become the proto-man type, surely there must have been others near enough, well up in the evolutionary tree. Surely if the line-up of eligible spinsters included his unmarried female relatives, Adam would have said, ‘This one will do!’. And God would have said, ‘No Adam. you can’t marry that sort, you are a new sort of creature, you are a new creation. Or rather a new evolution … She is not your sort!’

Chimp off the old block?
Adam would have said ‘But she is just like my mother and my sister.’ God would have replied ‘They are no longer your kith and kin.’

Or did God erase from Adam’s mind who he used to be? Did God also remove from his parents’ and relatives’ memories all knowledge of Adam before he became Adam? Or did God suddenly and completely so transform him that he realized that he was no longer a ‘chip off the old block’, and was determined to start his own family tree?

If, though, it was because through a special creative act of God he was now different, then why couldn’t God have started from scratch—scratching dirt up to make the man, not just rehashing an existing creature?

So, some allow that God evolved man, yet at a definite point declared: ‘Ape, you are now man! Adam is your name!’ And at that point, God invested him with God-likeness and the opportunity to live for ever as well. But, did he omit to evolve Eve? Is this why he had to create Eve? The Bible is very explicit as to how God made Eve. She was made from Adam’s side.

Cain and the ape hybrids?
Years later, their son Cain, having killed Abel, is banished to the land of Nod. And there he marries one of the daughters of the land. Where did she come from? Was she one of the apemen family? One of his ancestors’ group? If Cain could have married an ancestor type, then surely Adam could have. Cain certainly wasn’t in the Garden of Eden, but were none of his relatives suitable, if he was only two generations away from them? If he couldn’t have married an apewoman, had God made a hybrid variety, one that wasn’t sterile?

If we accept the Bible account, then Adam and Eve were a special creation, made on the sixth day of Creation Week. We find also that Adam lived to see Noah’s father, and Noah probably saw Abraham. In the days of Abraham there was writing. Was Adam’s story not written? Why has no trace of Adam’s ancestry been revealed? Has God hidden it from us and deceived us? Did Adam not tell his children even till the eighth generation, or did God take it from his mind?

If there is anything miraculous about the creation of man, we must accept it by faith. If there is nothing miraculous, who says there isn’t? Will we believe man, who doesn’t know everything, or God? If God is God and His word is truth, then let us accept the plain sense of Scripture by faith in God, the holy One who does not lie.


Did the Creator use evolution?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

Explain how that's sitting on the fence? In an eairlier post, you said yourself that the bible doesn't give the details? Why would it be so wrong to say that these scientfic theories are simply man's investigation into those details.

The whole "Science is the tool for man to find out how god created" Is a much better argument than anything you have posted so far.

If God is all knowing, as you suggest, then would he not have know that man would have investigated him at some point? Your bible says we were created in God's image. Wouldn't something created in God's image eventually strive to be like God? If we are God's children, would we not want to learn from our father? I know my children did. This isn't really a debate on the existance of a God or Evolution. As i've stated before, it's nature vs. nurture.

Religion is how you were Nurtured.
Science is an explination of Nature.

You can't accept God's word and accept the theory of evolution the theory goes against the bible.

1. God's timeline that man was put on the earth.

2, Sin brought forth death,the theory teaches death is natural.

3. The theory teaches man have animals as ancestors when the bible teaches we were created in the image of God.

4. The bible teaches teaches that organisms produce offspring that are of the same kind.

5. evolutionist reject the global flood.

So to accept the theory you have to reject the scriptures and the scriptures are the basis of belief in God.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I guess even God has his critics.

You can't criticize that which does not exist

Can you prove it ?

You can't prove a god does exist to any empirical standard.

And BTW one does not need to prove a negative. You claim there is a god then you must show him to me.

Until I see a god or actually have some credible proof from a source other than the bible which is unreliable and unverifiable then I will say he doesn't exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can't criticize that which does not exist

Can you prove it ?

You can't prove a god does exist to any empirical standard.

And BTW one does not need to prove a negative. You claim there is a god then you must show him to me.

Until I see a god or actually have some credible proof from a source other than the bible which is unreliable and unverifiable then I will say he doesn't exist.

Say's who ? Tell me how these men that wrote the bible knew what they did and what they wrote about was later confirmed through modern day science?

Are You still looking for a reason to doubt skull ?

I gave evidence, but you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence of intelligence and design was involved with life as we know it ,as well as the evidence that exists in our atmoshere and that great big awesome universe.

You have presented zero empirical EVIDENCE to prove your case that everything we see, touch, feel, and observe, is a result of a Non-intelligent, and Non-thinking process.

If you're gonna make the claim that everything is a result of a natural process, i think by your own reasoning you need to prove it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can't criticize that which does not exist

Can you prove it ?

You can't prove a god does exist to any empirical standard.

And BTW one does not need to prove a negative. You claim there is a god then you must show him to me.

Until I see a god or actually have some credible proof from a source other than the bible which is unreliable and unverifiable then I will say he doesn't exist.

The bible is unverifiable and unreliable ?

Tell that to the scholars,and archaeologist that use it as a guide to discovery.

Maybe you need to watch the naked archaeologist sometime on the discovery channel.

He will show you things that the anti God agenda driven archaeologist will not show you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can you prove it ?

You can't prove a god does exist to any empirical standard.

And BTW one does not need to prove a negative. You claim there is a god then you must show him to me.

Until I see a god or actually have some credible proof from a source other than the bible which is unreliable and unverifiable then I will say he doesn't exist.

Say's who ? Tell me how these men that wrote the bible knew what they did and what they wrote about was later confirmed through modern day science?

Are You still looking for a reason to doubt skull ?

I gave evidence, but you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence of intelligence and design was involved with life as we know it ,as well as the evidence that exists in our atmoshere and that great big awesome universe.

You have presented zero empirical EVIDENCE to prove your case that everything we see, touch, feel, and observe, is a result of a Non-intelligent, and Non-thinking process.

If you're gonna make the claim that everything is a result of a natural process, i think by your own reasoning you need to prove it ?

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

 

[Yoda]

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

Explain how that's sitting on the fence? In an eairlier post, you said yourself that the bible doesn't give the details? Why would it be so wrong to say that these scientfic theories are simply man's investigation into those details.

The whole "Science is the tool for man to find out how god created" Is a much better argument than anything you have posted so far.

If God is all knowing, as you suggest, then would he not have know that man would have investigated him at some point? Your bible says we were created in God's image. Wouldn't something created in God's image eventually strive to be like God? If we are God's children, would we not want to learn from our father? I know my children did. This isn't really a debate on the existance of a God or Evolution. As i've stated before, it's nature vs. nurture.

Religion is how you were Nurtured.
Science is an explination of Nature.

You can't accept God's word and accept the theory of evolution the theory goes against the bible.

1. God's timeline that man was put on the earth.

2, Sin brought forth death,the theory teaches death is natural.

3. The theory teaches man have animals as ancestors when the bible teaches we were created in the image of God.

4. The bible teaches teaches that organisms produce offspring that are of the same kind.

5. evolutionist reject the global flood.

So to accept the theory you have to reject the scriptures and the scriptures are the basis of belief in God.

How so?

1. There is no timeline specified in the bible. Even outside of Evolution, timeline can be done by carbon dating, such as archeologist use to date relics.

2. A flower wilts, a baby bird falls from it's nest and an infant child is found lifeless in it's crib (SIDS). They all had life and yet, they died. What sin could they have commited?

3. Yet, no image of God has ever been given.

4. Ever heard of cross pollination?

5. Never heard that one. Science will tell you that there was many great floods throught earth's history, not just one.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can't prove a god does exist to any empirical standard.

And BTW one does not need to prove a negative. You claim there is a god then you must show him to me.

Until I see a god or actually have some credible proof from a source other than the bible which is unreliable and unverifiable then I will say he doesn't exist.

Say's who ? Tell me how these men that wrote the bible knew what they did and what they wrote about was later confirmed through modern day science?

Are You still looking for a reason to doubt skull ?

I gave evidence, but you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence of intelligence and design was involved with life as we know it ,as well as the evidence that exists in our atmoshere and that great big awesome universe.

You have presented zero empirical EVIDENCE to prove your case that everything we see, touch, feel, and observe, is a result of a Non-intelligent, and Non-thinking process.

If you're gonna make the claim that everything is a result of a natural process, i think by your own reasoning you need to prove it ?

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Explain how that's sitting on the fence? In an eairlier post, you said yourself that the bible doesn't give the details? Why would it be so wrong to say that these scientfic theories are simply man's investigation into those details.

The whole "Science is the tool for man to find out how god created" Is a much better argument than anything you have posted so far.

If God is all knowing, as you suggest, then would he not have know that man would have investigated him at some point? Your bible says we were created in God's image. Wouldn't something created in God's image eventually strive to be like God? If we are God's children, would we not want to learn from our father? I know my children did. This isn't really a debate on the existance of a God or Evolution. As i've stated before, it's nature vs. nurture.

Religion is how you were Nurtured.
Science is an explination of Nature.

You can't accept God's word and accept the theory of evolution the theory goes against the bible.

1. God's timeline that man was put on the earth.

2, Sin brought forth death,the theory teaches death is natural.

3. The theory teaches man have animals as ancestors when the bible teaches we were created in the image of God.

4. The bible teaches teaches that organisms produce offspring that are of the same kind.

5. evolutionist reject the global flood.

So to accept the theory you have to reject the scriptures and the scriptures are the basis of belief in God.

How so?

1. There is no timeline specified in the bible. Even outside of Evolution, timeline can be done by carbon dating, such as archeologist use to date relics.

2. A flower wilts, a baby bird falls from it's nest and an infant child is found lifeless in it's crib (SIDS). They all had life and yet, they died. What sin could they have commited?

3. Yet, no image of God has ever been given.

4. Ever heard of cross pollination?

5. Never heard that one. Science will tell you that there was many great floods throught earth's history, not just one.

You can trace the chronolgy of the bible and determine an approximate time say 6,500 to 6,000 years.

They inherited sin from the parent and they also inherited bad genes from the family.


That makes sense, since God is a spirit. although the shroud of turin has some possibility that it may prove otherwise.

Yes another form of reproduction for plants but do you think maybe it's possible with animals or humans ?

They will tell you many because they don't want to admit to one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Say's who ? Tell me how these men that wrote the bible knew what they did and what they wrote about was later confirmed through modern day science?

Are You still looking for a reason to doubt skull ?

I gave evidence, but you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence of intelligence and design was involved with life as we know it ,as well as the evidence that exists in our atmoshere and that great big awesome universe.

You have presented zero empirical EVIDENCE to prove your case that everything we see, touch, feel, and observe, is a result of a Non-intelligent, and Non-thinking process.

If you're gonna make the claim that everything is a result of a natural process, i think by your own reasoning you need to prove it ?

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

[youtube]Pk0K1zgCDtE[/youtube]

[youtube]8G4zyBmgaeA&feature[/youtube]

[youtube]gvPkHpE-oks&feature[/youtube]