So the real argument and analogies should be...Who created, or how did these "laws" (which implies creation in itself) of the universe come to existence. They homologous structures exist because of the Fibonacci sequence... which was discovered by humans, not created by them. It seems to be "the fingerprint of God" so to speak and is why our limbs are divided as such, as well as flower pedals, all the way to galaxies... so the bike analogy is not really fitting. Lets talk laws of the universe
this argument make no sense to me because, especially with the bike analogy... They were both created with wheels (if you say we are the creator) because they were developed within this universe, in this dimension... with all of our "laws" ie gravity etc... its like if there are pegs... with only round holes in this universe... well all the pegs would be made round accordingly, and humans wouldnt make a square peg... but still its because round holes were CREATED... according to "laws" set forth
These days i find myself kinda torn between evolution and creation but I do tend to side more with evolution.. but from the moment i first heard about this "common features common designer" argument, i've never bought into it personally,, i think for the resons you mentioned...
This argument proves nothing, as most efficient natural design (we live in a natural world) for a specific purpose is reasonable. Some point to the differences between the human eye and other eye designs, but I can think of a perfect reason for the apparent design fault in the human eye, which I'll save for a more comprehensive explanation later, my point being, your observation and expectations fail to disprove on logical design grounds the existence of a creator.
My point is that God, as an infinitely creative being, would not have to use the same designs for things in order for his creation to be efficient, and would have no reason to do so.
Dave, you state that God would have no reason to use the same designs for things, but you are making an assumption. Unless you know the mind of God then how can you assume He has no reason?
As they are, they are no more evidence of a common ancestor than they are of a common designer. As for ad hoc, unless we have the innumerable missing links, then the whole 'we evolved from a common single cell ancestor' is itself ad hoc.
Two men standing around a victim, one with a gun in his hand and the other without, yet the one without says he shot the man, and in fact did. Under the circumstance cited, the man holding the gun is not evidence that he used the gun. Evidence of an event or other is not evidence unless that's actually what happened, no matter how it looks. Wouldn't you agree that to claim something is evidence for one side, when you KNOW you don't have all the pieces is unscientific?
True, but if we do not know for sure whether or not he did something, pointing out that he has no need to do it is a reason for us to doubt that he did it.
I wonder if you could elaborate on the mention of nested hierarchies in organisms? It is said they would not exist if God created them. Can you explain that a little more, or point me to a video that explains this?
> Your church prefers 80% because it gives themselves power and wealth
Can you now understand that I don't care about your personal beliefs, but that it is the ORGANISATION of your religion which must not be allowed to dictate how our society develops, and interfere with government, science and education in a vastly disproportionate manner.
Disaffiliate yourself with the religious organisation, or fight your bishops to excommunicate 80% of their congregations, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Which denomination are you affilated with? ie. which church do you go to?
> The church is the body of true believers. That is the church. Everything else is a man made organisation.
How would you decide if someone is a 'true' believer? In polls, 80% say yes. How would you refute them? If you did manage to distinguish, for instance, everyone with a criminal record can't be a true christian, how would the organisational aspect of the church weed these people out of the congregation?
If all you had as a citizen is your personal belief, then when it comes to developing our societies we are on an equal footing. Christian pressure groups could argue issues on the basis of the bible, and other pressure groups would have an equal footing based on their rationale.
What we have now is a tyrannical organisation unfairly dictating on your behalf (and you don't even seem to agree with them yourself)
You cannot weed out anyone. There is only one place the church exists and that is in the heart of the believers. NO one can see it touch it or exclude anyone else from entering in. All I repeat All denominations are man made organisations. Most are trying to serve God as best as they can some are trying to serve themselves as best as they can. Not cool, but that is the way it is. this does not affect the validity of the one message carried in the 66 books of the bible writen over 1500 years.
well you try it out for a Sunday and try to get a feel for what type of preaching is taking place.
"What do you do when the pastor preaches an interpretation of in the bible that you disagree with?"
If you are friendly with the pastor you can discuss it with him personally, or you might discuss it with an elder, or a deacon or even just another churc memeber.
"And why support the church with your presence when you already said that the organisation of religion is detrimental to it? "
Fellowship with other Christians is beneficial to your Christianity. Helping each other through the twists and turns of worldly existance is what it is about, not membership or attendance. You can actually be saved by the grace of God and never step into a church.
I have addressed this several earlier times in the comments: with God, everything is efficient. For him to structure all organisms differently would be no different than him structuring them all the same. Efficiency and inefficiency do not apply to an all-powerful being.
There are established laws that govern the natural world. Creating creatures designed to exist within these laws necessitates designs of efficiency regulated by these laws. In addition there is design intent, meaning that everything was designed for a purpose. This also serves as a design regulator.
> Creating creatures necessitates designs regulated by these laws
Wilful ignorance. Extreme stupidity.
Plants use CO2 and excrete O2. Animals use O2 and excrete CO2. There is NO reason whatsoever for a god to use two gases. Your only answer is: 'I know it doesn't make logical sense to design it like that, but we can't know the mind of god'.
Yet, we KNOW the history of the Earth's atmosphere, and EVOLUTION explains why plants and animals use different gases.
The main problem with that argument is that "designs" seen in nature are seldom "the most efficient" for a particular purpose. Plus, there is tremendous variation of the same structure between creatures.
For example, our eyes are very poorly designed, especially compared with a creature like the octopus. If "god" found a great design for the octopus eye, why didn't it use the same design for us, especially since the same gene (Pax) is used to make them? Unless god likes opticians best.
To an all-powerful being, everything is practical.He would have no reason to make homologous structures. Thus, homologous structures are evidence against his existence.
"Homologus structures proof of evolution?
They look alike? that's your argument?"
I also said that one can use the nested hierarchies as evidence for evolution. Look at the video I am responding to. Besides, there's a mountain of other lines of evidence for evolution. Chromosomal fusion, Erv's, transitional fossils etc.
sorry because things look alike and there is practicality in the design does not rule out a common designer. just because all things would be equally practical that doesn't exclude practicality or efficiency.
"because things look alike and there is practicality in the design does not rule out a common designer."
It is evidence against a common designer. As I said before, no matter how God designed creation, it would still be practical. For him, designing similar creatures would be no different than if he had designed completely different ones.
"just because all things would be equally practical that doesn't exclude practicality or efficiency."
Um, yes it does.If everything is equally practical, than practicality ceases to have any meaning.God would not have create organisms to be similar to be practical because everything is practical for him.
"God would not have create organisms to be similar"
HAVE being the operative word. of course he wouldn't have to, but he could. That's the point and because that is the way he chose to do it that's his business.
You are acting as though creationism is an established fact. My point is that because we would not expect God to create organisms with similarities, the similarities are evidence that God did not directly create organisms.
"That's the point and because that is the way he chose to do it that's his business."
You presented no reason to think that he did it in the first place. Your explanation is only an ad hoc.
your objection is an ad hoc. If there were a designer the fact that he/she/it doesn't have to use practicality or similarity, doesn't exclude the use of practicality or similarity. Your argument is flawed. It doesn't follow basic logic. the outcome of practical and similar is equally possible as impractical and dissimilar.
I keep having to repeat myself: creating similar structures would not be any more practical for God than creating completely different ones. God would have no reason for creating animals with homologous structures. He would have good reason, however, to create completely different structures as it would be very compelling evidence of his creation. Therefore, homologous structures are evidence against a direct creation by him.
you don't get it there is no difference to God. Homologous, not homologus, it is no evidence either way. It is just your wishful thinking that is clouding your thought.
Take a step back for a moment. If the style of creation is completely indifferent to you then what you choose is not evidence of anything.
That is logical! what you propose is putting some sort of purpose behind the choice. You are trying to impart your feelings on God.
I am "assuming" that God cares enough about his creation to put thought into it. If he created it a certain way, he created it a certain way for a reason. If he wanted to think it was directly created, then he would have made that obvious. If he wanted us to think he did it through naturalistic processes, he would (and in my opinion, did) make that obvious as well.
In a well written book, the author makes every sentence have a meaning. Why should a creation of God be any different?
Ah now you are starting to see. YOU are ASSUMING and expressing YOUR OPINION. These are good and healthy expressions as long as you use them correctly. However to say that your assumptions and opinions are proof that their is no intelligent designer well...... not so good.
You're just saying 'god did it that way, and even though it doesn't make sense to us, and we have to make up outrageously convoluted arguements to explain it, we can't possibly know the mind of god, so we can only grapple around in the dark with regard to his intentions'.
The reality is that Dave brought up a good point that you have no answer for, so you have to pull out this stupid supernatural get-out-of-jail-free card to defend your idiotic belief.
There obviously is. According to the complete shit written in the bible, your god created light by speech, planets, animals and fish by thought, a man from dirt with his hands, and a woman from a rib.
And the only explanation that you have for your god not blinking the whole lot into existence at once is 'I know it doesn't make sense, but we can't know the mind of god'.
I do get it. you my young friend are the one that doesn't get it and are too young to swallow your pride and admit you are wrong.
However, you are not pathetic you are just young. If you live a little longer you might begin to understand. Right now, you want to be the boss and you want deperately to be right. oh well better luck next time.
I've been arguing with religious people for over 35 years you ignorant cretin - I'm in my mid-forties, and a teacher. My language reflects my anger, not my age.
And why don't you actually comment on the point: It would make perfect sense for your god to blink everything into existence at once, yet he used thought, speech and hands, AND YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION WHY except for 'we can't understand him'.
I have been commenting on the point my YOUNG friend. Now that you are not dealing with a child, as you usually do, you cannot accept that you are wrong. The fact that God or an all powerful being has no reason to create homologosly or efficiently does not exlude a homologus or efficient creation. Simple, the truth is sometimes frustrating but facts are facts. your suppositions are your own business. you can suppose God shouldn't, couldn't or what ever but you are just plain wrong. I'm a teacher.
"The fact that God or an all powerful being has no reason to create homologous or efficiently does not exlude a homologus or efficient creation."
Very well, homologous structures can point to a God, but this is a stupid and dishonest God, as he deliberately manipulates nature to point to something that is not true.You're arguments are no different than those of the creationists who say "well, God created the fossil evidence for evolution to test our faith!" This is not the Christian God.
If you think that there can be no established methodology for how God would choose to do something, why are you even in the creation/evolution debate? The God you describe is entirely unfalsifiable and thus, unprovable because he can be invoked to explain any evidence that is brought up. You have no evidence that God created homologous structures, and there is no reason for him to have done so. Therefore, saying that he just created them is an ad hoc explanation.
> Very well, homologous structures can point to a God
Yep. But they could also point to a unicorn defecating the universe into existence. That's in the same realm of fantasy as the abrahamic religions; they have exactly the same amount of evidence, logic and reason.
All we can do is wait for delusional bastards like this to die and take their ridiculous beliefs with them. I just hope he hasn't been able to brainwash and indoctrinate his children and grandchildren with this shit.
> Simple, the truth is sometimes frustrating but facts are facts.
The simple truth is that you're admiting you can't possibly know one single fucking thing about your god.
So why not be a deist, of an unknown and unknowable god? It delusional idiocy stating on one hand that you can't know this god, to stating that you know that this creation entity is the one written about by ignorant bronze-age people. It is incredible that you then state this as fact!!?
Also you are a pathetic, scared little man. You are hiding behind a powerful, wealthy organisation. *They* have had the power to call this delusion 'truth', not you. In a few decades, once the churches have been shut or burnt, I wonder how many of you frightened little insignificant people will be able to keep your convictions, when they are mere personal opinion and not strengthed by the deceit and fallacy of these organisations?
YOU are the one parading your belief as 'truth'. Rational people DON'T KNOW and don't claim to. You're the one that can't say those two little words.
'Big Bang' and abiogenesis theories (none of which involve lightning & mud, you dickwad) simply try to logically EXPLAIN what we KNOW about the universe. Your explanation is not based on what we know, but on the ignorance of bronze-agers.
I suggested deism, shithead, *because* no-one knows.
So sonny, you finally admit that you don't really know.
OK this is your first step to arriving at the truth.
What you call a logical explanation, is really just a story you made up incorporating some of the observatioins you have made, not you personally.
The bible is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors. Study reveals one message. this is impossible. five people watching a fire, give five different messages. Not quite "the ignorance of bronze-agers"!
> So sonny, you finally admit that you don't really know
WHEN in these posts have I said that *anyone* knows the truth of reality? YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING TO KNOW THE 'TRUTH', idiot.
> The bible is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors
If so, that would indicate that the bible is not divine, you delusional fool. And the sheer number of christian denominations with different interpretations also means that your god can't even make himself understood.
Actually all those books with all of those authors and so much time to write it, with one message from begining to end. The book itself is a miracle.
Bellieve it or not, all of the writters didn't even know what was written before them. Also the writers were varied in social status, some were kings, some were paupers, and just about everything inbetween. It is quite impossible to duplicate. it almost seems well.......devinely inspired. keep searchin sonny, seek and you will find.
It's the biggest piece of ignorant shit I've ever read. And the fact that you actually believe the contents is a mind-blowing testimony to the depths of stupidity which some people can reach, and to the sheer power of childhood indoctrination.
> actually I didn't become a christian until I was in college
You stupid fuck. Do you not realise that you were set-up to believe ever since you were a baby? We are totally immersed in it every day of our lives. I could give you three random religous demographics, and you could tell me the countries; the fact is that people generally believe what they've been indoctrated with. If they do reject it, the first reaction is to turn to 'new age' spirituality or another religion.
Well, I've been called many things during the many decades of my life, however, it is a bold man that attempts to call me stupid. It has been through searching and studying that I have come to know the truth. I hope for your sake that when you grow up like me you might come to understand things as well as I.
> It has been through searching and studying that I have come to know the truth
Complete shite. It is obvious you haven't done one piece of unbiased research using a properly peer-reviewed sources. You've just cherry picked your way through religious propaganda, which makes you wilfully ignorant and therefore stupid.
All you do is repeat 'I know the truth' without any basis whatsoever, whilst also ignoring the opposing evidence and arguments placed in front of you.
It all depends on which side of the fence you are on I suppose. Properly peer-reviewed by people that think like you isn't much proof of your argument being valid. Each side should have the other side review thier work. then the truth might come out. With evolutionists reviewing the work of other evolutioinists and creationists approving the work of other creationists, what would you expect. Of course Evolutionist call creationist work propoganda and visa versa.
> Properly peer-reviewed by people that think like you isn't much proof of your argument being valid. Each side should have the other side review thier work
That's is TOTALLY ignorant of the process.
1)
ANYONE who subscribes to the journals has access to the publications. You are then free to falsify it and submit your findings.
2)
Some of the professional scientists and editors ARE christian. For instance, there is a devout christian in charge of the HGP (Francis Collins).
I am affraid you don't understand how the term christian is thrown around these days. Heck Adolph Hitler said he was a christian. the KKK members say they are christians, and many others. Just saying you are a christian doesn't really tell anyone anything about you at all.
> you don't understand how the term christian is thrown around these days
Under your definition, there are other christians who think YOU aren't 'christian enough'. The only possible definition of a christian is someone who accepts and believes the christian doctrine. If they then ignore it behaviourly, they STILL have the christian belief.
You subjective distinction is between 'good christians' and 'bad christians', not 'christian' or 'not christian'. Simply judgemental arrogance!
> Heck Adolph Hitler said he was a christian. the KKK members say they are christians
And the christian section of the stormfront forum is one of the busiest ones. Your problem is that the churches as organisations welcome these horrible people to boost its following...
If you only counted the christians who followed the bible carefully and hardly ever did anything bad to others, there would only be 10%. Your church prefers 80% because it gives themselves power and wealth.
> The bible is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors
The new testament was canonised as early as 367 by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and at latest by 405, pope Innocent I.
Canonisation is simply MEN cherry picking their way through ancient writings and throwing out what contradicts their own position. There is nothing divine about it, little man.
So the real argument and analogies should be...Who created, or how did these "laws" (which implies creation in itself) of the universe come to existence. They homologous structures exist because of the Fibonacci sequence... which was discovered by humans, not created by them. It seems to be "the fingerprint of God" so to speak and is why our limbs are divided as such, as well as flower pedals, all the way to galaxies... so the bike analogy is not really fitting. Lets talk laws of the universe
dankeewolnir4042 2 years ago
this argument make no sense to me because, especially with the bike analogy... They were both created with wheels (if you say we are the creator) because they were developed within this universe, in this dimension... with all of our "laws" ie gravity etc... its like if there are pegs... with only round holes in this universe... well all the pegs would be made round accordingly, and humans wouldnt make a square peg... but still its because round holes were CREATED... according to "laws" set forth
dankeewolnir4042 2 years ago
These days i find myself kinda torn between evolution and creation but I do tend to side more with evolution.. but from the moment i first heard about this "common features common designer" argument, i've never bought into it personally,, i think for the resons you mentioned...
Five stars!
SaiyaMel 2 years ago
This argument proves nothing, as most efficient natural design (we live in a natural world) for a specific purpose is reasonable. Some point to the differences between the human eye and other eye designs, but I can think of a perfect reason for the apparent design fault in the human eye, which I'll save for a more comprehensive explanation later, my point being, your observation and expectations fail to disprove on logical design grounds the existence of a creator.
honey2heaven 2 years ago
My point is that God, as an infinitely creative being, would not have to use the same designs for things in order for his creation to be efficient, and would have no reason to do so.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Dave, you state that God would have no reason to use the same designs for things, but you are making an assumption. Unless you know the mind of God then how can you assume He has no reason?
honey2heaven 2 years ago
He may hypothetically have a reason, but to say that there is without giving evidence of such a reason is an ad hoc.
The point of this video is that homologous structures are evidence of a common ancestor, not a direct designer.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
As they are, they are no more evidence of a common ancestor than they are of a common designer. As for ad hoc, unless we have the innumerable missing links, then the whole 'we evolved from a common single cell ancestor' is itself ad hoc.
honey2heaven 2 years ago
They are evidence of a common ancestor, because homologous structures are something that one would expect to see if common ancestry were true.
I'm just repeating stuff that I said in the video. Your point about transitional fossils is a red herring.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Two men standing around a victim, one with a gun in his hand and the other without, yet the one without says he shot the man, and in fact did. Under the circumstance cited, the man holding the gun is not evidence that he used the gun. Evidence of an event or other is not evidence unless that's actually what happened, no matter how it looks. Wouldn't you agree that to claim something is evidence for one side, when you KNOW you don't have all the pieces is unscientific?
honey2heaven 2 years ago
We can never know "all the pieces" for a given situation. By your standards, nothing can be considered scientific evidence for anything.
My argument is not a scientific one so much as it is a philosophical one., anyways.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
@StutteringDave It does not follow from God has no need to God necessarily would not.
SirContraMundum 1 year ago
@SirContraMundum
True, but if we do not know for sure whether or not he did something, pointing out that he has no need to do it is a reason for us to doubt that he did it.
StutteringDave 1 year ago
Oh cool, you already did of the science stuff for VMind4Christ
k87jury 3 years ago
Logic strikes again! Well done.
dunnonuffink 3 years ago
I wonder if you could elaborate on the mention of nested hierarchies in organisms? It is said they would not exist if God created them. Can you explain that a little more, or point me to a video that explains this?
tubewatch59 3 years ago
AronRa's "10th foundational falsehood of creationism" does a very good job of explaining it.
/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
StutteringDave 3 years ago
> Your church prefers 80% because it gives themselves power and wealth
Can you now understand that I don't care about your personal beliefs, but that it is the ORGANISATION of your religion which must not be allowed to dictate how our society develops, and interfere with government, science and education in a vastly disproportionate manner.
Disaffiliate yourself with the religious organisation, or fight your bishops to excommunicate 80% of their congregations, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
My Church? and what church do you suppose That I am affilliated with?
The church is the body of true believers. That is the church. Everything else is a man made organisation.
mejc2 3 years ago
Which denomination are you affilated with? ie. which church do you go to?
> The church is the body of true believers. That is the church. Everything else is a man made organisation.
How would you decide if someone is a 'true' believer? In polls, 80% say yes. How would you refute them? If you did manage to distinguish, for instance, everyone with a criminal record can't be a true christian, how would the organisational aspect of the church weed these people out of the congregation?
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
A devout christian who agrees with me:
savior-of-all . com/organized . html
If all you had as a citizen is your personal belief, then when it comes to developing our societies we are on an equal footing. Christian pressure groups could argue issues on the basis of the bible, and other pressure groups would have an equal footing based on their rationale.
What we have now is a tyrannical organisation unfairly dictating on your behalf (and you don't even seem to agree with them yourself)
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
You cannot weed out anyone. There is only one place the church exists and that is in the heart of the believers. NO one can see it touch it or exclude anyone else from entering in. All I repeat All denominations are man made organisations. Most are trying to serve God as best as they can some are trying to serve themselves as best as they can. Not cool, but that is the way it is. this does not affect the validity of the one message carried in the 66 books of the bible writen over 1500 years.
mejc2 3 years ago
> Not cool, but that is the way it is
I agree, it isn't cool, but it DOESN'T have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way.
So you're telling me that you don't go to any church or affiliate with any of the denominations, like the guy in the article I linked to?
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
I do go to churches. However, I do not claim any particular denomination.
mejc2 3 years ago
> I do go to churches. However, I do not claim any particular denomination.
So how do you choose which churches to attend? Surely it would be quite insane to go to a catholic church one week and a protestant one the next?
What do you do when the pastor preaches an interpretation of in the bible that you disagree with?
And why support the church with your presence when you already said that the organisation of religion is detrimental to it?
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
"So how do you choose which churches to attend?"
well you try it out for a Sunday and try to get a feel for what type of preaching is taking place.
"What do you do when the pastor preaches an interpretation of in the bible that you disagree with?"
If you are friendly with the pastor you can discuss it with him personally, or you might discuss it with an elder, or a deacon or even just another churc memeber.
mejc2 3 years ago
"And why support the church with your presence when you already said that the organisation of religion is detrimental to it? "
Fellowship with other Christians is beneficial to your Christianity. Helping each other through the twists and turns of worldly existance is what it is about, not membership or attendance. You can actually be saved by the grace of God and never step into a church.
mejc2 3 years ago
Not only the homologous structures but also the remnants of our ancestors don't shout a common designer.
Why would we have the 3 pseudogenes for egg yolk? Chicken have pseudogenes for teeth? But reptiles don't have pseudogenes for nipples?
If it is all from a common designer than he is a fraud...
Terrencje 3 years ago
The repartition in design need not be for purposes of convenience can but can rather be attributed to most efficient design for a particular purpose.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
Yes, but a being as intelligent as God would be able to come up with multiple efficient designs for a particular purpose.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
Yes but 'multiple efficient' does not equal most efficient does it. I mean the BEST wheel is always round right?
honey2heaven 3 years ago
I have addressed this several earlier times in the comments: with God, everything is efficient. For him to structure all organisms differently would be no different than him structuring them all the same. Efficiency and inefficiency do not apply to an all-powerful being.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
There are established laws that govern the natural world. Creating creatures designed to exist within these laws necessitates designs of efficiency regulated by these laws. In addition there is design intent, meaning that everything was designed for a purpose. This also serves as a design regulator.
honey2heaven 3 years ago
And God designed the natural laws that necessitate the similar structures, so my point still stands.
"In addition there is design intent, meaning that everything was designed for a purpose. This also serves as a design regulator."
But surely God is capable of think of multiple organs and structures to serve the same purpose.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
> Creating creatures necessitates designs regulated by these laws
Wilful ignorance. Extreme stupidity.
Plants use CO2 and excrete O2. Animals use O2 and excrete CO2. There is NO reason whatsoever for a god to use two gases. Your only answer is: 'I know it doesn't make logical sense to design it like that, but we can't know the mind of god'.
Yet, we KNOW the history of the Earth's atmosphere, and EVOLUTION explains why plants and animals use different gases.
Wake up from your delusion
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
The main problem with that argument is that "designs" seen in nature are seldom "the most efficient" for a particular purpose. Plus, there is tremendous variation of the same structure between creatures.
For example, our eyes are very poorly designed, especially compared with a creature like the octopus. If "god" found a great design for the octopus eye, why didn't it use the same design for us, especially since the same gene (Pax) is used to make them? Unless god likes opticians best.
middlekk 3 years ago
Is it written somewhere that God cannot be practical?
Homologus structures proof of evolution?
They look alike? that's your argument?
oh well then why didn't you say so now it's all clear.
They look alike. sheesh!
mejc2 3 years ago
To an all-powerful being, everything is practical.He would have no reason to make homologous structures. Thus, homologous structures are evidence against his existence.
"Homologus structures proof of evolution?
They look alike? that's your argument?"
I also said that one can use the nested hierarchies as evidence for evolution. Look at the video I am responding to. Besides, there's a mountain of other lines of evidence for evolution. Chromosomal fusion, Erv's, transitional fossils etc.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
sorry because things look alike and there is practicality in the design does not rule out a common designer. just because all things would be equally practical that doesn't exclude practicality or efficiency.
mejc2 3 years ago
"because things look alike and there is practicality in the design does not rule out a common designer."
It is evidence against a common designer. As I said before, no matter how God designed creation, it would still be practical. For him, designing similar creatures would be no different than if he had designed completely different ones.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
"just because all things would be equally practical that doesn't exclude practicality or efficiency."
Um, yes it does.If everything is equally practical, than practicality ceases to have any meaning.God would not have create organisms to be similar to be practical because everything is practical for him.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
you are partly correct he wouldn't have to but he is not excluded from. that is the point now you are starting to get it.
mejc2 3 years ago
Thanks for that.
AronRa 3 years ago
Welcome!
StutteringDave 3 years ago
"God would not have create organisms to be similar"
HAVE being the operative word. of course he wouldn't have to, but he could. That's the point and because that is the way he chose to do it that's his business.
Not having to doesn't mean can't or won't.
mejc2 3 years ago
You are acting as though creationism is an established fact. My point is that because we would not expect God to create organisms with similarities, the similarities are evidence that God did not directly create organisms.
"That's the point and because that is the way he chose to do it that's his business."
You presented no reason to think that he did it in the first place. Your explanation is only an ad hoc.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
your objection is an ad hoc. If there were a designer the fact that he/she/it doesn't have to use practicality or similarity, doesn't exclude the use of practicality or similarity. Your argument is flawed. It doesn't follow basic logic. the outcome of practical and similar is equally possible as impractical and dissimilar.
mejc2 3 years ago
I keep having to repeat myself: creating similar structures would not be any more practical for God than creating completely different ones. God would have no reason for creating animals with homologous structures. He would have good reason, however, to create completely different structures as it would be very compelling evidence of his creation. Therefore, homologous structures are evidence against a direct creation by him.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
you don't get it there is no difference to God. Homologous, not homologus, it is no evidence either way. It is just your wishful thinking that is clouding your thought.
Take a step back for a moment. If the style of creation is completely indifferent to you then what you choose is not evidence of anything.
That is logical! what you propose is putting some sort of purpose behind the choice. You are trying to impart your feelings on God.
mejc2 3 years ago
I am "assuming" that God cares enough about his creation to put thought into it. If he created it a certain way, he created it a certain way for a reason. If he wanted to think it was directly created, then he would have made that obvious. If he wanted us to think he did it through naturalistic processes, he would (and in my opinion, did) make that obvious as well.
In a well written book, the author makes every sentence have a meaning. Why should a creation of God be any different?
StutteringDave 3 years ago
I think that if God created homologous structures, he did it for a reason. What's wrong with trying to find the meaning behind it?
StutteringDave 3 years ago
Ah now you are starting to see. YOU are ASSUMING and expressing YOUR OPINION. These are good and healthy expressions as long as you use them correctly. However to say that your assumptions and opinions are proof that their is no intelligent designer well...... not so good.
Peace out.
mejc2 3 years ago
> now you are starting to see.
You're just saying 'god did it that way, and even though it doesn't make sense to us, and we have to make up outrageously convoluted arguements to explain it, we can't possibly know the mind of god, so we can only grapple around in the dark with regard to his intentions'.
The reality is that Dave brought up a good point that you have no answer for, so you have to pull out this stupid supernatural get-out-of-jail-free card to defend your idiotic belief.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
> you don't get it.
> There is no difference to God
There obviously is. According to the complete shit written in the bible, your god created light by speech, planets, animals and fish by thought, a man from dirt with his hands, and a woman from a rib.
And the only explanation that you have for your god not blinking the whole lot into existence at once is 'I know it doesn't make sense, but we can't know the mind of god'.
Your wilful ignorance is fucking pathetic.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
I do get it. you my young friend are the one that doesn't get it and are too young to swallow your pride and admit you are wrong.
However, you are not pathetic you are just young. If you live a little longer you might begin to understand. Right now, you want to be the boss and you want deperately to be right. oh well better luck next time.
mejc2 3 years ago
> However, you are just young
I've been arguing with religious people for over 35 years you ignorant cretin - I'm in my mid-forties, and a teacher. My language reflects my anger, not my age.
And why don't you actually comment on the point: It would make perfect sense for your god to blink everything into existence at once, yet he used thought, speech and hands, AND YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION WHY except for 'we can't understand him'.
As I said - pathetic, ignorant and delusional
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
I have been commenting on the point my YOUNG friend. Now that you are not dealing with a child, as you usually do, you cannot accept that you are wrong. The fact that God or an all powerful being has no reason to create homologosly or efficiently does not exlude a homologus or efficient creation. Simple, the truth is sometimes frustrating but facts are facts. your suppositions are your own business. you can suppose God shouldn't, couldn't or what ever but you are just plain wrong. I'm a teacher.
mejc2 3 years ago
"The fact that God or an all powerful being has no reason to create homologous or efficiently does not exlude a homologus or efficient creation."
Very well, homologous structures can point to a God, but this is a stupid and dishonest God, as he deliberately manipulates nature to point to something that is not true.You're arguments are no different than those of the creationists who say "well, God created the fossil evidence for evolution to test our faith!" This is not the Christian God.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
If you think that there can be no established methodology for how God would choose to do something, why are you even in the creation/evolution debate? The God you describe is entirely unfalsifiable and thus, unprovable because he can be invoked to explain any evidence that is brought up. You have no evidence that God created homologous structures, and there is no reason for him to have done so. Therefore, saying that he just created them is an ad hoc explanation.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
> Very well, homologous structures can point to a God
Yep. But they could also point to a unicorn defecating the universe into existence. That's in the same realm of fantasy as the abrahamic religions; they have exactly the same amount of evidence, logic and reason.
All we can do is wait for delusional bastards like this to die and take their ridiculous beliefs with them. I just hope he hasn't been able to brainwash and indoctrinate his children and grandchildren with this shit.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
> Simple, the truth is sometimes frustrating but facts are facts.
The simple truth is that you're admiting you can't possibly know one single fucking thing about your god.
So why not be a deist, of an unknown and unknowable god? It delusional idiocy stating on one hand that you can't know this god, to stating that you know that this creation entity is the one written about by ignorant bronze-age people. It is incredible that you then state this as fact!!?
You are a complete dipshit.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
> You are a dipshit
Also you are a pathetic, scared little man. You are hiding behind a powerful, wealthy organisation. *They* have had the power to call this delusion 'truth', not you. In a few decades, once the churches have been shut or burnt, I wonder how many of you frightened little insignificant people will be able to keep your convictions, when they are mere personal opinion and not strengthed by the deceit and fallacy of these organisations?
Be prepared to die for your belief.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
the truth is that you cannot know for sure. You think that lightning struck a mud puddle and everything else just happened. Oh ok that's scientific.
mejc2 3 years ago
> the truth is that you cannot know for sure
YOU are the one parading your belief as 'truth'. Rational people DON'T KNOW and don't claim to. You're the one that can't say those two little words.
'Big Bang' and abiogenesis theories (none of which involve lightning & mud, you dickwad) simply try to logically EXPLAIN what we KNOW about the universe. Your explanation is not based on what we know, but on the ignorance of bronze-agers.
I suggested deism, shithead, *because* no-one knows.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
So sonny, you finally admit that you don't really know.
OK this is your first step to arriving at the truth.
What you call a logical explanation, is really just a story you made up incorporating some of the observatioins you have made, not you personally.
The bible is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors. Study reveals one message. this is impossible. five people watching a fire, give five different messages. Not quite "the ignorance of bronze-agers"!
mejc2 3 years ago
> So sonny, you finally admit that you don't really know
WHEN in these posts have I said that *anyone* knows the truth of reality? YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING TO KNOW THE 'TRUTH', idiot.
> The bible is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors
If so, that would indicate that the bible is not divine, you delusional fool. And the sheer number of christian denominations with different interpretations also means that your god can't even make himself understood.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
Actually all those books with all of those authors and so much time to write it, with one message from begining to end. The book itself is a miracle.
Bellieve it or not, all of the writters didn't even know what was written before them. Also the writers were varied in social status, some were kings, some were paupers, and just about everything inbetween. It is quite impossible to duplicate. it almost seems well.......devinely inspired. keep searchin sonny, seek and you will find.
mejc2 3 years ago
> The book itself is a miracle
It's the biggest piece of ignorant shit I've ever read. And the fact that you actually believe the contents is a mind-blowing testimony to the depths of stupidity which some people can reach, and to the sheer power of childhood indoctrination.
Your brain is pig-swill.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
actually I didn't become a christian until I was in college for my first undergaduate degree.
mejc2 3 years ago
> actually I didn't become a christian until I was in college
You stupid fuck. Do you not realise that you were set-up to believe ever since you were a baby? We are totally immersed in it every day of our lives. I could give you three random religous demographics, and you could tell me the countries; the fact is that people generally believe what they've been indoctrated with. If they do reject it, the first reaction is to turn to 'new age' spirituality or another religion.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
Well, I've been called many things during the many decades of my life, however, it is a bold man that attempts to call me stupid. It has been through searching and studying that I have come to know the truth. I hope for your sake that when you grow up like me you might come to understand things as well as I.
mejc2 3 years ago
> It has been through searching and studying that I have come to know the truth
Complete shite. It is obvious you haven't done one piece of unbiased research using a properly peer-reviewed sources. You've just cherry picked your way through religious propaganda, which makes you wilfully ignorant and therefore stupid.
All you do is repeat 'I know the truth' without any basis whatsoever, whilst also ignoring the opposing evidence and arguments placed in front of you.
You're an old fool.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
It all depends on which side of the fence you are on I suppose. Properly peer-reviewed by people that think like you isn't much proof of your argument being valid. Each side should have the other side review thier work. then the truth might come out. With evolutionists reviewing the work of other evolutioinists and creationists approving the work of other creationists, what would you expect. Of course Evolutionist call creationist work propoganda and visa versa.
mejc2 3 years ago
> Properly peer-reviewed by people that think like you isn't much proof of your argument being valid. Each side should have the other side review thier work
That's is TOTALLY ignorant of the process.
1)
ANYONE who subscribes to the journals has access to the publications. You are then free to falsify it and submit your findings.
2)
Some of the professional scientists and editors ARE christian. For instance, there is a devout christian in charge of the HGP (Francis Collins).
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
I am affraid you don't understand how the term christian is thrown around these days. Heck Adolph Hitler said he was a christian. the KKK members say they are christians, and many others. Just saying you are a christian doesn't really tell anyone anything about you at all.
mejc2 3 years ago
> you don't understand how the term christian is thrown around these days
Under your definition, there are other christians who think YOU aren't 'christian enough'. The only possible definition of a christian is someone who accepts and believes the christian doctrine. If they then ignore it behaviourly, they STILL have the christian belief.
You subjective distinction is between 'good christians' and 'bad christians', not 'christian' or 'not christian'. Simply judgemental arrogance!
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
> Heck Adolph Hitler said he was a christian. the KKK members say they are christians
And the christian section of the stormfront forum is one of the busiest ones. Your problem is that the churches as organisations welcome these horrible people to boost its following...
If you only counted the christians who followed the bible carefully and hardly ever did anything bad to others, there would only be 10%. Your church prefers 80% because it gives themselves power and wealth.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
> The bible is 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors
The new testament was canonised as early as 367 by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and at latest by 405, pope Innocent I.
Canonisation is simply MEN cherry picking their way through ancient writings and throwing out what contradicts their own position. There is nothing divine about it, little man.
wikipedia . org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago