Creationists

[Hollie]

We can't even produce a working cell and you want me to tell you how God did it.

Be sure to thank your gods for the blueprint for that cancer cell. That was truly a masterstroke of "design".

 

[Hollie]

Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.

That makes no sense.

One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.

But I have felt god... at least I thought it was god... turned out to be Bronchitis, instead.

Such is the fallacy of using "feelings" to interpret our surroundings.

 

[daws101]

This gets more stupid by the minute. You really are blinded by Darwinism. Next thing you're going to tell me is that cells are made up of plasma, that they don't consist of individual tiny parts... oh wait! You already just did that... doh!!!

Your absolute blind denial is alarming...

Bacterial Flagellum - YouTube

never said or implied that, assembly and growth are two separate things.
has anyone ever seen a tree go to the branch store to buy a kit of new branches to replace worn or broken ones ?

ever seen an engine grow new spark plugs?

Nope, but I've seen a computer come up with new code. Regardless, you are now arguing against yourself. If evolution happened so easily and randomly, why can't we reproduce life. Heck we can't even place all the real, parts we just removed from one cell into a test tube and get it to come to life. This is the real absurdity of your Materialistic religion.

the real absurdity here is you having no proof of anything outside material existence and claiming you know there is and inferring you know how it works!

 

[daws101]

The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator

There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, “materialism” is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of “materialism”; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various “houses of materialism” where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.

Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why can’t your gods be honest with you?

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.

Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.

One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.

WHAT DOD YOU KNOW ABOUT the laws of nature as you've claimed numerous times "god did it" and by definition that's not natural.

"One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him"-ywc
the above is a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT..
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ,THAT "FEELING" IS ANY MORE THAN A HIGH EMF (ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD)

Even more intriguing is the phenomenon of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) and its influence on the brain. Researchers have found that areas of a house said to be ‘haunted’ actually have fluctuating EMFs. The EMFs interfere with normal brain chemistry to produce feelings that there is something else present in the room. Though some believers have stated that it is the ghosts that cause the EMF fluctuations, scientists such as Michael Persinger have been able to artificially produce sensations of other worldly beings by exposing the brain to fluctuating magnetic fields. Persinger is perhaps most famous for his ‘God Helmet’ which can artificially cause the wearer to experience supernatural phenomenon, and even feel the presence of god.

The human brain is a powerful supercomputer, used to filter through vast amounts of information and interpret it all. Its complex chemistry can be effected by outside forces, through use of drugs for example, and reality can therefore become twisted. Though I am no neural surgeon my basic understanding of how the brain works allowed me properly interpret my horrific experience.

Thanks to science I was able to understand and cope with a traumatic experience. I did not need the services of an exorcist, and I did not need to pray to Jesus. And science allowed me to communicate this to others. A friend of mine told me about an eerie experience that he had. He and his flatmate experienced exactly the same dream in the course of one night. In the morning they compared notes and concluded that they had been abducted by aliens! But I suppose if the earth’s natural magnetic field fluctuates (which I am assured it does), and sleep paralysis is common, then this is the most reasonable explanation for my friend’s apparent abduction. Indeed one commonly cited explanation of alien abductions is sleep paralysis.

I am certain that science will continue to explore the murky regions of the brain and will continue to pull the monsters out from under our beds.

EMF | god-proof.com




WYC if that's not proselytizing what is?
you say you never proselytize....I just busted you in another lie!

 

[Montrovant]

The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god. In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.

ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'. They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!

Life may be a product of design. I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.

 

[Montrovant]

"With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America. Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."

CEH

Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.

Wait, is your argument that sudden changes in the way humanity lives due to new invention can't happen, or that it's unreasonable to think they happen?

Have you, perhaps, heard of the industrial revolution?

What's your point ? it still took designers and builders.

My point, if you had read what you quoted, is that the idea UltimateReality posted, in which humanity must not have been around for long before farming and horse-riding became commonplace, seems to be debunked by more recent human history. It had nothing to do with your reply.

 

[UltimateReality]

If you have spent anytime at all in biology yes you have.

Why do all cells possess left handed amino acids when left and right handed amino acids could easily connect ?

I’ve spent much time in biology. It seems odd that you would need to spend any time at all in biology when “the gods did it” should suffice. Biology is closely linked to that science of “evilution” so be careful – science has a way of illuminating those dark recesses of the supernatural.

I was really hoping that a ID'er / creationist would step forward and provide us with the evidence that would allow us to "infer" a god or gods. That hasn't happened. I was really hoping that you or another ID’er would step up to the plate to defend creationism / ID. I was hoping Creationists would finally propose their General Creation Theory...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we don’t have a consensus of creationists.

Umm, yeah. Because there is a consensus among Materialist Darwinists... right.

As we know (well, as some of us know), It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer or one or more gods. If any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed

A typical view of the Darwinist lot!!! Just because you are ignorant of it means it doesn't exist, right??? Stephen Meyer has presented, and quite eloquently so, an ID theory based on Darwin and Lyell's methodology. If you truly searched, you could find.

(something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. ID'ers / Supernaturalists are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... natural explanations are all that we they have evidence of. And those answers do very well. The laws of nature must act some way... they happen to act as they do. So what? Does anyone have any evidence that they could act any other way?

Therefore, I have no faith in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.

They are as they are until someone discovers something different. Let's look at some other "scientific evidence". Since America began its crusade to eradicate God, are American's more or less healthy physically and mentally? What does the evidence support? Sadly, you are still in the minority. A overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God, even though most have abandoned His principles.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. ... [L]et us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington (1796)

"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take His place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”

- Ravi Zacharias

 

[UltimateReality]

The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator

There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, “materialism” is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of “materialism”; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various “houses of materialism” where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.

Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why can’t your gods be honest with you?

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.

You are quickly earning the nickname Strawman Hollie. The assertions above are neither true nor commonly accepted in religious thought, but feel free to go ahead and tear them down if it makes you feel better. Once again, it would be amusing if it wasn't so sad, that is, when ignorant people suffer the false notion they are knowledgeable with no awareness of their deep ignorance.

I'm guessing your opinion of the so-called scientists who came up with the Multi-universe theory would suffer the same disdain from you. When you say you believe in other universerses that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of our realm in an asserted other realm, that we cannot understand or even describe... I would say these scientists qualify as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.

 

[UltimateReality]

"While the multiverse hypothesis has been around for a couple of decades, only in recent years has the mainstream media popularized the notion. And when a name like Stephen Hawking pops up in connection with this idea, eyes open wider and ears perk up.

Hawking and colleague Thomas Hertog propose in the June 23, 2006, edition of Physical Review D (see abstract): a "top-down" approach to cosmic history, where the observer starts with the present and works backward to find a pathway to the universe's history. (Most observational cosmologists adopt a "bottom-up" approach, looking back to the beginning and constructing a history from there.) It gets technical for a layperson, but essentially the top downers find a window of opportunity (really, a window of the unknown) in the ever-so-brief period between zero and a millionth of a trillionth of a second after the universe began. Here a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics allows that many histories of the universe converged. In other words, many universes existed, each with their own histories, and they somehow contributed to the beginning of this universe. Therefore the universe resulted from no unique beginning. The universe is here and we are here because these histories worked out just right. We're lucky.

The multiverse idea rests on several questionable assumptions. One is that its appeal to a particular interpretation: the "many worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics is correct. This interpretation holds that the reality behind the uncertainty in quantum effects means that multiple histories do indeed exist. (Again, those of us who aren't physicists might look like we just bit into a lemon here.) Before we charge the brilliant Hawking with wild speculation, however, it is important to note that Hawking and Hertog's variation on multiverse theory represents a proposal, not a model. They offer caveats to that effect, admitting that the idea is not yet testable."

I'd also like to offer a Caveat. I admit the idea of God is not YET testable.

Reasons To Believe : Does Hawking Believe in Multiple Universes?

 

[UltimateReality]

We can't even produce a working cell and you want me to tell you how God did it.

Be sure to thank your gods for the blueprint for that cancer cell. That was truly a masterstroke of "design".

Hollie, the "mysterious" cancer cell is really just a bad copy of your normal cell. Christian Theology provides ample explanation for the destruction and pain we see in nature. Like most atheists, you wrestle with mystical and theological questions you struggle to answer so your answer is to turn to Materialism to make sense of your horrible, painful, meaningless life. If you really want to truly enlighten yourself, this is a great place to start...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-Signature-Classics-Christianity-Screwtape/dp/0060653027/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1340335897&sr=8-2&keywords=cs+lewis+collection]Amazon.com: C. S. Lewis Signature Classics: Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, A Grief Observed, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, and The Great Divorce (Boxed Set) (9780060653026): C. S. Lewis: Books[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.

That makes no sense.

One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.

But I have felt god... at least I thought it was god... turned out to be Bronchitis, instead.

Such is the fallacy of using "feelings" to interpret our surroundings.

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on faith from your doctor. HA!

 

[UltimateReality]

never said or implied that, assembly and growth are two separate things.
has anyone ever seen a tree go to the branch store to buy a kit of new branches to replace worn or broken ones ?

ever seen an engine grow new spark plugs?

Nope, but I've seen a computer come up with new code. Regardless, you are now arguing against yourself. If evolution happened so easily and randomly, why can't we reproduce life. Heck we can't even place all the real, parts we just removed from one cell into a test tube and get it to come to life. This is the real absurdity of your Materialistic religion.

the real absurdity here is you having no proof of anything outside material existence and claiming you know there is and inferring you know how it works!

Strawman fallacy. I never made such a claim. Try again spanky.

 

[UltimateReality]

There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, “materialism” is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of “materialism”; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various “houses of materialism” where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.

Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why can’t your gods be honest with you?

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.

Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.

One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.

WHAT DOD YOU KNOW ABOUT the laws of nature as you've claimed numerous times "god did it" and by definition that's not natural.

"One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him"-ywc
the above is a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT..
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ,THAT "FEELING" IS ANY MORE THAN A HIGH EMF (ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD)

Even more intriguing is the phenomenon of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) and its influence on the brain. Researchers have found that areas of a house said to be ‘haunted’ actually have fluctuating EMFs. The EMFs interfere with normal brain chemistry to produce feelings that there is something else present in the room. Though some believers have stated that it is the ghosts that cause the EMF fluctuations, scientists such as Michael Persinger have been able to artificially produce sensations of other worldly beings by exposing the brain to fluctuating magnetic fields. Persinger is perhaps most famous for his ‘God Helmet’ which can artificially cause the wearer to experience supernatural phenomenon, and even feel the presence of god.

The human brain is a powerful supercomputer, used to filter through vast amounts of information and interpret it all. Its complex chemistry can be effected by outside forces, through use of drugs for example, and reality can therefore become twisted. Though I am no neural surgeon my basic understanding of how the brain works allowed me properly interpret my horrific experience.

Thanks to science I was able to understand and cope with a traumatic experience. I did not need the services of an exorcist, and I did not need to pray to Jesus. And science allowed me to communicate this to others. A friend of mine told me about an eerie experience that he had. He and his flatmate experienced exactly the same dream in the course of one night. In the morning they compared notes and concluded that they had been abducted by aliens! But I suppose if the earth’s natural magnetic field fluctuates (which I am assured it does), and sleep paralysis is common, then this is the most reasonable explanation for my friend’s apparent abduction. Indeed one commonly cited explanation of alien abductions is sleep paralysis.

I am certain that science will continue to explore the murky regions of the brain and will continue to pull the monsters out from under our beds.

EMF | god-proof.com




WYC if that's not proselytizing what is?
you say you never proselytize....I just busted you in another lie!

How do you really know what you are experiencing is REAL?? Maybe your trapped in the Matrix Neo???

Even your recollection of your traumatic event is not real. Every time you pull up the memory your brain alters it and fills in information that isn't accurate. Check out the article on memories in this months WIRED magazine.

 

[UltimateReality]

The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god. In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.

ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'. They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!

Life may be a product of design. I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.

The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. It hasn't and its not.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Creationists based their beliefs on a book 3000 years old... Darwin had his theories at around the mid 1800's. Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.

Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...

My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?

Pretty weak arguement, since you really have to say the universes just exploded, I guess it said, what the hell. Then you you have to have the perfect conditions for life on Earth, then you have to have a process that starts off with bacteria and ends with humans? uh....that's as much belief as christians or muslims. And as for scientists, I'll stick with DeCartes, Newton, Galileo, Pasteur, MAx Planck, Kelvin, Compton, Copernicus, you know christians.
As for the creationist, it makes more sense, but I'm not sure where they're getting the 6000 year figure from?

Even Einstein believed in God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

 

[Hollie]

That was a poorly executed sidestep. If you’re not prepared to address comments directed at your arguments, don’t raise a nonsense issue that you’re unprepared to defend.

A typical view of the Darwinist lot!!! Just because you are ignorant of it means it doesn't exist, right??? Stephen Meyer has presented, and quite eloquently so, an ID theory based on Darwin and Lyell's methodology. If you truly searched, you could find.

I understand that you, like others, tend to recoil at challenges to your belief in the supernatural but weak attempts at insults with slogans such as “Darwinists”, only further degrade credibility.

They are as they are until someone discovers something different. Let's look at some other "scientific evidence". Since America began its crusade to eradicate God, are American's more or less healthy physically and mentally? What does the evidence support? Sadly, you are still in the minority. A overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God, even though most have abandoned His principles.

Copying and pasting irrelevancies does nothing to defend to your sidestepping.
You were offered an opportunity to substantiate your incredible claims of supernaturalism and you did an Olympic quality backstroke.

As to abandoning "his" principles, that's not such a bad thing to happen.

It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around. Medicine, science, philosophy have all suffered because of the actions of men who were believers. It's too simplistic and irresponisble to shrug and say, "That's not god's fault, that's man's fault for being corrupt". By your own ideology god created man, and gave man the abilities he has -- ultimately, man didn't create Satan, god did. Man didn't create sin, god did (unless you claim that man is so powerful as to have been able to create Satan-- but of course, Satan was "evil" before man was created-- have you ever read the Adam and Eve story?)

According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family (and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried). He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)


It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Godidit' (or more frequently 'Thegodsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.

 

[Hollie]

The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. It hasn't and its not.

I'd suggest you avoid discussions involving science as you tend to stumble over your own comments with a lack of understanding some very basic principles of science.

Evidence supporting the fact of evolution is not in dispute within the scientific community. You tend to make bellicose statements which are invariably false.

 

[Hollie]

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on faith from your doctor. HA!

I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.

Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

 

[Montrovant]

The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god. In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.

ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'. They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!

Life may be a product of design. I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.

The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. It hasn't and its not.

I was unaware that evolutionary theory claimed the creation of life is easy. In fact, I don't think evolutionary theory concerns itself with the creation of life at all, rather it is about what happens once life has already arisen.

Further, even if you want to claim abiogenesis as part of evolution, I have not seen it described as easy. Random, yes, but not easy. And once again, the fact that humanity has not recreated the events that may have occurred to begin life is no argument against the possibility. The things humanity has not done FAR outweigh the things we have.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on faith from your doctor. HA!

I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.

Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

Medicine while it has come a long way it still really is just a band-aid where we eventually die as promised in the book of genesis. Now if we could figure a way to deal with the over 5,000 genetic disorders that are the result of mutations which is supposedly one of the engines of evolution. That my dear Hollie is a very strong argument against the theory of macro-evolution. I believe in micro-adaptations but do not believe in macro. Between other neutral , harmful mutations and mechanisms correcting the errors genetic information would be interrupted to a point that your theory could not happen as evolutionist claim.