There is so much evidence around us to prove an Intelligent creator.

by nicolaou 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  5go

  Also I submit the credibility of creationism (ID) is quite strained at the moment.

  Remember not that long ago the bible account was considered literal by creationist. Until they evidence was overwhelming the bible was wrong about everything.

  Then they tried to fit the evidence in way to make the bible appear correct. Which also was proven wrong as well.

  Now creationist are left with attacking evolution with very lame arguments. Rather than trying to create a theory they know won't fly in the face of mounting evidence.
• 

  5go

  Scientists can't repeat what they say they see in nature, either, but they do say they are scientists. What gives?

  Vaccines are produced via evolution in the laboratory, so what are you talking about?
• 

  AuldSoul

  It seems absurd from a design point of view that the nerves that carry information from the light-sensitive cells of the vertebrate eye are in front of, rather than behind, the light-sensitive retinal cells, but this is a consequence of the way this part of the eye develops as an outgrowth of the central nervous system (the octopus eye resembles that of mammals, but has a better arrangement, with the light-sensitive cells in front of the nerves). — The Independent - Science Made Simple: Evolution (booklet).

  And yet, we supposedly share a common "eye" ancestor. Odd. Maybe, instead, we just have similar code that was rearranged for variations on a single theme.

  We have better depth perception than an octopus because, in part, our retinal "blind spot" creates a subconscious reference point against which distance can be measured by constant contrast. Improved light-sensitivity is not automatically a good thing, our eyelashes partially obstruct our vision but allow sensitivity to lateral movements across the field of vision and serve to improve peripheral perception, again, by contrasted light reflections.

  "Better" is entirely subjective, is moralistic, and is 100% dependant on the suitability to a given environment. By this last measure, our proven special adaptability argues against haste in labeling any feature from another design "better". We don't know whether we would have even survived as a species if we had seen the world through an octopuses eyes, and without knowing all the potential outcomes words like "better" and "worse" become pretty meaningless.
• 

  funkyderek

  nicolaou:

  FD: Spot on. You do know I was making an opening statement, not for myself (I'm an evoultionist/atheist after all) but for the sake of the argument?

  But of course. And you did well - the argument has flourished!

  It's difficult to maintain patience with individuals who promote the idea of a God/Creator "because that's what the Bible says" but the so-called argument from design is at least an argument that can be made. You and I would agree it's also an argument that can be overturned and refuted - it's been done many times on this forum alone. I was just trying for a more humble approach from both camps.

  Well, the argument from design was never more than superficially appealing due to the infinite regress it requires. However, it's persistence was excusable given that nobody had come up with a viable alternative - but that excuse hasn't been valid for a century and a half. There is a viable alternative to design and it's called natural selection.

  Aleman:

  The illnesses out there that every day kill people are also so complex in design, althogh there are cures to many of them, there are those that make people suffer and die due to them if they don't get treatment. Cancer, Aids, Leprosy, Black death, spanish flu, the comon cold, etc. and we can't get rid of them. There has been so much research against these illnesses and yet they can't stop them from existing.

  Good point. The bacteria and viruses that cause these horrible diseases are every bit as complex as any other life form so if there is a single designer it is obvious that he is a brutal sadist. Otherwise, the alternative is multiple designers. Neither of these is a problem for design theory per se although many believers would be uncomfortable with either of them. Of course, in reality, these diseases evolved by the same process of natural selection as every other life form on earth. In fact, because of their short generation times we can see them evolving, most notably and worryingly in direct response to the selection pressure provided by the use of antibiotics.

  AuldSoul:

  And yet, we supposedly share a common "eye" ancestor. Odd. Maybe, instead, we just have similar code that was rearranged for variations on a single theme.

  We (humans and octopuses) don't have similar code for our eyes. They developed independently of one another in a fine example of convergent evolution. The eye is such a useful tool and so trivial for natural selection to improve upon that it has developed independently upwards of 40 times. Of course, the types of eyes various animals have - and indeed the code for them - can be accurately predicted by their place in the evolutionary tree. If there was a designer, he only seemed to reuse code within (apparent) clades and never, ever, ever outside them. He even reused faulty and non-functioning code. Now that's odd.
• 

  OBVES

  We can prove it using the Bible ! The way it was written and what information we get from the Bible if we understand it properly .

  There many witnesses in the past who saw God's manifestations He exist and we must rely on their testimony.If we don't rely on the testimony of others we can deny the reality around us and the whole history of mankind . You will not prove me anything if I choose so .

  How manifestations can serve as a proof of God's exiastence ? Why manifestations ? Because the Bible states God Yahweh is always invisible . Only such creator could create the endless universe we live.If we assume any other form of God he would not create the universe .

  If so, we live in the universe that even the science cannot prove its existence and we must believe in the existence of the universe !

  How can universe be endless , has no end ? And we know that it was created . When ? From what ? What was before in the same place before the universe we see was created? How come helium and nitrogen gave the universe its beginning ? ! Where does helium and nitrogen come from ? So we are living in the world that has no end whatever direction we look and look for the end ? It is unimaginable ! How can we live in the universe we cannot prove it has end in space and beginning in time ? That is why the faith is the most basic logical requirement from God Yahweh that makes God's servants the wisest human beings and God Yahweh loves that and accepts such people.

  I can give you how manifestations can be as the best proof of God's existence and the science will not prove the truth God Yahweh exists .

  I am going to work and in a dream I believe God gave me these things are going to take place while I am riding on bike.

  At the first street light I will see a man dressed in white and red with three dogs : one dog white,the second brown and the third black.A branch from a tree will fall on the brown dog . At the second street light I will see an old man whose age will be 87 years and I will ask him about his age and he will tell me he is 87-old . Then I am going to see a postcard with the panoramc view of Philadelphia lying at the street crossing and then one block from the crossing a young woman age 21 will have a green umbrella in her hand and the yellow shopping bag and it in a small black kitten looking out .

  If all these events will really take place as I had dreamed about this will be a proof God Yahweh gave me dream and He must exist.
• 

  AuldSoul

  We (humans and octopuses) don't have similar code for our eyes. They developed independently of one another in a fine example of convergent evolution.

  funkyderek,

  Interesting. If we inserted the code for an octopus eye into the human genome at the location responsible for developing the eye, what sort of an eye would result? Perhaps something similar has been done with mice and insects . . . do insects and mice have similar code for their eyes?

  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-41V3248-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=eda060202b546802fe8389eccb35a571

  http://www.pr-inside.com/decyphering-the-genetic-program-of-r493378.htm

  I guess it all depends on how you measure "similarity". I think we do not KNOW as much as you often suggest we do. Perhaps "convergent evolution" is predicted by evolution theory. If so, it is very close to failing in meeting that condition. However, that is the beauty of unproven science. Just as those in favor of a hypothesis of design are free to adjust their underlying assumptions in light of new data to more correctly accomodate the whole, evolutionists are free to do the same.

  He even reused faulty and non-functioning code. Now that's odd.

  Not when compared with known design. Clearing out "trash code" would only be necessary if it caused the program to fail or prevented efficient functioning of the program. But then, how much do we really know about the potential functionality of currently dormant code or code currently perceived to be faulty? We have only been studying this stuff for a nanosecond, geologically speaking.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  greendawn

  Hamilcarr, man throughout his life is beset by two forces by two currents, one that pulls him down from below and is the inferior animal nature and the force of the spirit which seeks to elevate and ennoble man. A man ruled and inspired by the inferior nature is vastly different from one ruled and inspired by the spiritual nature. One force is regressive, devouring, and tends towards zero point, zero activity while the other is progressive and tends towards creativity and infinity.
• 

  IMustBreakAway

  I think part of the argument behind ID is that people misunderstand complexity. Most things are not as nearly complex as they first appear. Stephen Wolfham has a book about cellular automata and how very complex systems can be created using fractals and infinitely self similar and repeating bits of code.
  
  I think evolution works allot in the same way. Repeating bits of code and whatever sticks sticks. I read something somewhere that put it this way.
  
  "Think about the old example of an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of type writers. Yes the odds of them completing the script to Hamlet seems astronomical, but consider that the paper has a memory. So when the right letter happens to land in the right place the paper remembers it and always puts that letter there. Then once a complete script has been written, it is easy to duplicate over and over. Now think about it this way. Instead of typing the monkeys are throwing simple machines into a pile. When the right simple machine finds a way to join with another one in a useful way it sticks and gets repeated."
  
  I think about the above statement with simple machines in reference to simple chemical reactions. Once they stick in a useful way the machines grow into more and more useful items. The pattern is retained because it works, not because it is designed. Thus says the barbarian..
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Auldsoul:

  We have only been studying this stuff for a nanosecond, geologically speaking.

  I'd be interested in knowing your position on something. How long do you think life has been around?

  From previous posts, you seem to accept it's been millions of years. Where then, do humans fit in?

  I see three choices, maybe you have another:

  1. Humans have been around since the start of life millions of years ago.

  2. A designer created humans thousands of years ago, after designing animal life millions of years ago.

  Or perhaps I'm wrong about your position about life starting millions of years ago, in which case-

  3. All life, including humans, was designed only thousands of years ago.
• 

  TopHat

  Layla, I am with you on that we honestly don't have all the answers, on both sides of the discussion. If it was easy to create life from an electrified mud puddle , the science of evolutionist would do so. AND I believe they have tried more than once with no results. However, Dawkins is attacking religious beliefs instead of proving evolution.