Ok you crackpot
"Making a case for 'intelligent design'"
by inkling 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
dawg
Same old same old... why don't we just take all our science classes and dump all of them in the river and teach that great talking snake story in Genesis? THat's right, no need for a natural explaination in science calss, the talking snake will do for man's orgins.
And you guys are just catching on that either Blackboo's a hoax, or really needs to be ignored...as I said previously, if he's real he needs an education better than we all can give him.
-
metatron
Check out these amazing guinea worm pictures:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/africa/worm23.shtml
More than that, consider the fantastic life cycle of this incredible parasite - and the intelligent design it manifests!
metatron
-
AlmostAtheist
The article quoted Darwin, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The entire Darwin quote, in context:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, around which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given among the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, the whole or part of an organ, which had previously performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus by insensible steps greatly change its nature. Many plants are known which regularly produce at the same time differently constructed flowers; and if such plants were to produce one kind alone, a great change would be effected with comparative suddenness in the character of the species. It is, however, probable that the two sorts of flowers borne by the same plant were originally differentiated by finely graduated steps, which may still be followed in some few cases."
Nothing like an out-of-context quote, eh?
"There is no god." -- Psalms 14:1
Dave
-
Deputy Dog
dawg
Same old same old... why don't we just take all our science classes and dump all of them in the river and teach that great talking snake story in Genesis? THat's right, no need for a natural explaination in science calss, the talking snake will do for man's orgins.
Why not teach them both in philosophy class, where they both belong?
-
LtCmd.Lore
Darwin stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Actually irreducibly complexity CAN evolve. But since the Bacterial Flagellum isn't irreducibly complex anyway, I won't bother explaining that, and I'll leave you with a link instead: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
Well, it has been proven that the bacterial flagellum, the tiniest irreducible complex molecular machine used as a motor to move a cell, could never have been produced by a Darwinian mechanism or evolution.
They deliberately worded this in a very decieving way. It's true that the bacterial flagellum is "the tiniest irreducible complex molecular machine used as a motor to move a cell"
But the smaller parts of it CAN be used for something OTHER than moving a cell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 (spoilers: the judge ruled in favor of evolution.)
That quote from the aticle is so deceptive, that it's obvious they knew they were wrong, but wrote it anyway. That's just sick!
Lore - W.W.S.D?
-
BurnTheShips
Blackboo, I'm beginning to wonder if you really are an atheist trying to make creationists look bad by repeating some of their lamest arguments.
Indeed. The opposite view is untenable. It is hardly credible that such a feeble brain could generate sufficient electrical potential to type a post, let alone actually know how to use a computer and compose an impressionistic representation of an English sentence.
Burn
-
inkling
impressionistic representation of an English sentence.
_ ___ _ | | / _ \| | | |_| (_) | |__ |____\___/|____|
-
Blackboo
Lame argument?? Ha! My arguments make complete SENSE. U cannot get around the fact that nothing cannot create ITSELF..i gave you guys enough good common sense arguments about DNA and such..but you guys IGNORED it..i am still waiting for my questions to be answered if not..keep drowning in the fantasy evolution..most of ya,ll are some serious God haters in here..and it is sad really.
-
wherehasmyhairgone
Blackboo
You answered your own question in your last reply.
God I hope your an atheist, other wise it is a dark future for Texas