The legend of the Great Flood is shared amongst the most ancient peoples of our planet today. >The South Americans (Canari/Inca etc.) >The Mesoamericans (Mayans/Aztecs etc.) >The Chinese (Yu the Great) >The Sumerians >The Hebrews >The Indians >The Aborigines >The Ancient Egyptians >The Norse >The Greco-Romans >The Native Americans >The Ancient Africans (Pygmies & other African tribes) >The Inuits >The Pacific islanders
The commonality of said myth is that Modern Humanity is repopulated by the survivors of the flood. They were told to take shelter or build boats in advance by 'divine entities'.
So is it possible to conjecture that the Great Deluge came from the common experience, stemming from the retreat of the glaciers from the previous ice age/floods in general or did it originate from shared cultural memory (Common Heritage)?
The only outliers I can find are the Khoi and San people (Two of the most Ancient Baseline Human races in existence) who appeared at first glance to not have a 'Great Flood myth' (Correct me if I am wrong).
Exactly how many ice ages have Humanity undergone?
Tyler Jackson
>majority of civilizations arose on riverbanks and coastlines >Arguably most common natural disaster that would plague them has at least one story in folklore
Wow how magical
Christopher Price
Over 50% of all languages Earth have a word for rain Coincidence? Really makes you think huh
Logan Clark
No retard. Early civilizations emerged from socio-ecological systems with abundant resources.... River banks. Large amounts of glacial melting early on too. No fucking wonder why floods are common you ninny. Humans share common ancestry via divergent migration and evolution
The global flood is pretty much a historical fact.
Joseph Hughes
Lizards and fantasy creatures. Why you don't believe in mermaids and centaurs, minotaurs?
James Green
its called cognitive dissonance.
atheists dont *want* there to be a God, so even if science and archeology point to the Bible being true they will never admit it.
they cant refute these findings, so instead they just shitpost and throw ad hominems like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Kayden Wood
>dinosaurs are fantasy creatures
David Thomas
Sun Worship is the true patrician mythology.
Jonathan Stewart
It's cute to watch YEC's adapt more and more technical terminology into their own defense mechanisms.
Everytime they get blown the fuck out, they think that if they repeat the jargon like a mantra it will be the magic word that makes THEIR worldview correct!
Aiden Cruz
Paganism originated in Babel, that's where all of the world's polytheism traces its origins back to.
When people spread over the earth, they took the Semiramis/Baal/Tammuz mystery religion with them. That's why the Egyptian, Greek and Roman pantheons are the same thing except with different names.
Fun fact: Abraham's father was the head idol maker for Nimrod when they lived in Chaldea.
>Abram knows idols are not gods >destroys the idols >tells his father the gods battled eachother >his father tells him "Do you think I'm stupid?" >Abram says "Then why do you believe in these idols?" >Nimrod wants Abram killed
>God calls out Abram
Ryder Reed
It's cute watching you pretend you're on the winning side when your theory has been blown apart decades ago.
Camden Reed
>atheists have no argument so they resort to lying
thanks for proving my point
Owen Sanders
Book of Jasher isn't canon though, so I would take it with a grain of salt.
Joseph Kelly
Right, because scientists except whoever the fuck that is as correct.
Grayson Murphy
except the boat shaped figure in question turned out to be rocks...
Levi Thompson
>literally just repeats my post back to me on cue lol like a puppet
Benjamin Ramirez
>Ad populum logical fallacy
"How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.
Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?
By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."
Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.
The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth."
Jason Bell
HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013
1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory. 2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either. 3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils. 4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either. 5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution. 6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world. 7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well. 8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.
Landon Hill
>evolution has been proven wrong & debunked >atheists still believe in it
Is it better to believe something because of evidence, or because of Faith? If evidence is better, then why are you religious? If Faith is better, then why do you need evidence?
Juan Edwards
Do you pretype your responses or do you whip them up on demand?
Dylan Hernandez
Two ice ages. The first one was with the multiple Hominids, while the second only had Homo Sapiens.
You mean the same people who deliberately destroy Biblical evidence and have a basement full of giant human skeletons?
Credibility lost.
Benjamin Hernandez
Weakest replies ever.
The user cooked you.
Hunter Butler
samefag
Luis Brooks
REKT
Cameron Baker
As does most petrified wood.....holy shit are you blind?
Anthony Lewis
atheists never had any credibility to begin with. darwinism has been BTFO years ago
Jason Hernandez
Quite the opposite is happening.
Quite the opposite.
Hunter Miller
>Everytime they get blown the fuck out,
This is a fictional event.
Camden Nelson
b-but its real in the atheist's mind
Dylan Perry
It is believed tho that dragons are based on the skeletons of a dinosaur As well as cyclops and skulls of mammoths or elephants See Adrienne Mayor There was a recent article that I am not sure I can find again, a man proposed that he could classify myths in the same way as we classify linguistics i.e. from proto-Indo-European towards, say, Latin, to vulgar Latin and the Romance languages (doing this from memory hope I got it right)
It doesn't seem far stretched that many myths have very ancient origins but what the guy was doing seems really hard
Some things might seem similar but could have different origins and not be related at all
Carson Edwards
This has to be embarrassing . . . if you’re an atheist. A new study performed at the University of York used targeted magnetism to shut down part of the brain. The result: belief in God disappeared among more than 30 percent of participants.
That in itself may not seem so embarrassing, but consider that the specific part of the brain they frazzled was the posterior medial frontal cortex—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic.
In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.
You’ve heard the phrase, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”? Apparently we can now also say, “I have too many brains to be an atheist.”
Tyler Wilson
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
Michael Gonzalez
Real bad hombres!
Logan Hernandez
>basement full of giant human skeletons proof? I've seen the pictures, but you guys have yet to source them, prove they aren't edited, or to prove the smithsonian is hiding skeletons
Leo Sanders
One. Directly after and as a result of the Flood of Noah. (Every volcano on earth erupting, spewing smoke into the air for a year, cooling the planet. Hence one huge slab of ice with little tiny storm driven layers on top.)
Whose ark has been found in Turkey.
Bentley Lewis
Variation is a random combination of heritable genetic traits. Variation occurs when two organisms pass on their genetic information to their mutual offspring. The father and mother both contribute a set of genes to the offspring. They get mixed and matched so that as subsequent generations reproduce, the genetic information gets distributed throughout the population. This way, if something goes wrong within the genes in one organism, there are plenty of good copies still available in the other organisms.
Variation is what gives us the variety of organisms within kinds. The things we most widely recognize are the various breeds of domestic animals, dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc. Although these are the results of intelligent selection, the same types of divisions occur in the wild. The difference is dogs, cats, cows and horses are bred for based on the desires of man, whereas in the wild, breeding is undirected, and poor matches are eventually eliminated.
Variation is not a source of new genetic information; it is only the reshuffling of information that already existed. And it is designed to serve a purpose, to slow the degradation of the genetic information. As you study life you will find that there are many error correcting and error preventing systems in life, the immune system is one. At the level of the cell there are all sorts of error correcting systems and mechanisms. The fact that life is error correcting at all levels is more evidence for intelligent design. For systems designed to trap, reduce and correct errors, assume there is a standard to be maintained. It also shows that there is anticipation that error will occur. Awareness and recognition are built into thoughtless molecules. If life was designed by unconscious random rearrangements of molecules, by mistakes and errors, you would think that life would welcome error, or at least seem unconcerned with it. The presence of error correcting at all levels is evidence that life was designed.
Nicholas Hughes
>Paganism originated in Babel, that's where all of the world's polytheism traces its origins back to. that is fucking shitty abrahamic belief, no real proof.
Luis Wright
They also believe the opposite is true; that if they don't believe in hell hard enough, they won't end up there.
They're really just shitty little false gods running about, aren't they.
Kevin Murphy
Neither natural selection nor variation are a creative process. If that was all that life had to play with then it could never "evolve" from molecules to man. Now there is no question that if a better organism came along that natural selection would select it. That's obvious and results in another mistake that evolutionists often make, that is, assuming that if a feature gives an organism an advantage, then it must have evolved, when in actuality, a selective advantage only decreases the chances of extinction.
What needs to happen for evolution to take place? It's the writing of brand new genetic code. We call this mutation. Mutations are random errors in the code. Outside of the theory of evolution, mutation is a bad thing. This is why people like Richard Dawkins try to keep the focus on natural selection. But natural selection cannot act until a series of mutations creates something that can be selected. There are three directions a mutation can take. Most of the time a mutation will be neutral and have no immediate effect on the organism. In other cases mutations will harm the organism to some degree. And according to evolution, in some rare and as yet unobserved cases, it benefits the organism. This supposedly takes it down the road towards a brand new organ, structure or integrated system.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed, they are so rare in fact that in desperation some evolutionists have resorted to calling sickle cell anemia, and other harmful mutations, beneficial because they have "beneficial" side effects. Such as sickle cell protecting against malaria. That's pretty sad. Without beneficial mutations, however, evolution didn't happen. Another place they try to find beneficial mutations is by claiming that numerous neutral mutations will build up over time to create a new functional and beneficial gene sequence. This is far from reality however.
Nicholas Rogers
The proof is everywhere.
Go look for it.
Aaron Taylor
Think about this, if you have a small error, one that doesn't really deter from the code, what are the chances that another small error is going to combine with the first and create a new beneficial function, rather than bring it closer to the point where it is harmful. Population geneticists are fully aware that small neutral mutations occur with every passing generation. These mutations don't increase function or begin to create new systems. Figuratively, they slowly add noise to the code and sooner or later a gene will cease to function. Although signal and noise is not a true comparison it helps to illustrate the effect. If we add noise to a signal it eventually becomes unintelligible, it doesn't enhance the message. Mutations however can cause a cease of function with a single change. Mutations cause loss of information at a much higher rate.
Now think about this, if beneficial mutations are so rare that you can't name any real ones and neutral mutations, that eventually add up to a harmful mutation occur with every generation, which is going to accumulate faster. By the time a beneficial mutation comes along, there are already thousands of neutral and harmful mutations already in the genetic code.
The fact that the genetic code seems to be in fair working order is a testament to the recent creation. Life could not have survived millions of years with the mutation rates observed by scientists today.
Leo Morales
When variation is not given a wide range of genes to work with evidence of the underlying harmful mutations begin to surface. These kinds of mutations are very prominent in purebred animals. All sorts of genetically based maladies crop up, such as deafness, bone and organ deformations. Most of us probably know someone with a genetically inherited disease or malformation. Common genetic diseases get passed on for two basic reasons, either the gene is recessive, waiting to be expressed or the disease is not lethal before reproductive age is reached. This allows harmful mutations to spread throughout populations.
The point is that mutation, variation, natural selection or any combination of the three are incapable of driving evolution. Natural selection only selects what is available, variation is made up of only what is available and mutations are in the end, always harmful.
So, Natural selection is a conservative process that preserves the genetic make up by selecting the best adapted organisms. Variation is the result of the intermixing of genes at reproduction, and is not an evolutionary force or mechanism, but the result of one of life's many in-built error prevention mechanisms. They are a testimony to intelligent design, not engines of evolution.
A true understanding of the factors for change is actually devastating for any ideas of evolution beyond speciation, leaving only one viable alternative, intelligent design creation.
Jack Perez
Can confirm, I googled the text of and are verbatim quotes of YEC blogs.
Then again red flags like "darwinism" are enough. I though Christians weren't supposed to be deceitful? I guess nothing is off the table to defend your religiously obligated convictions. Literal cultists.
Gabriel King
it's called an archetype kek
Wyatt Wood
>it's an "anons pretend to be creationists for those sweet, sweet (you)s" thread Shame.
Jaxon Sanchez
What kind of scientific experiment would you do to determine if something were created by intelligence or formed through natural processes? Would testing something chemically prove it was designed? Only if you knew that the chemicals were unable to produce that combination or arrangement without intelligence. You would not only have to set up experiments to test the natural properties of the chemicals involved but you would have to be reasonably sure that the chemicals would not normally produce the structure or arrangement you are examining.
Of course all intelligently designed things rely on the properties of the natural elements that make them up. So in essence, if we limit ourselves to an examination of chemical and physical properties how would we conclude something was intelligently designed?
Using the scientific method you can determine all the ingredients in a jar of peanut butter, but what science cannot do is repeat the process that produced the recipe, that's a part of history. Using science you could make your own recipe that produced a similar jar of peanut butter, but that would be intelligent design. The problem with searching for natural origins of life is that experiments must be intelligently designed to produce desired results when attempting to look for natural origins. Not recognizing this causes misinterpretations of the results.
How do we tell a jar of peanut butter is intelligently design? There would be the likelihood of the design happening naturally. Could a jar of peanut butter come about through a series of purely natural steps? Likelihood plays a role. But more importantly a jar of peanut butter has something in common with life, and it's not protein.
Are you mad that evolution is an unscientific myth?
Benjamin Howard
Life and all things designed by intelligence have instructions either written or in the form of an idea. The instructions to make a jar of peanut butter are independent of the product they define. DNA is also independent of the product it defines. The code in the DNA does not need to know what it codes for. The separation of the code from the actual design is evidence of intelligent intent.
So how does that relate to creation? If you want to understand or study the creation of something, you need to be there at the creation event. You need to observe the steps. Yet that would only be the start. In order to understand the process you would have to repeat the steps yourself. The problem with studying life's origins is that the creation event or events are part of history. They can't be examined by observing the process. One of the biggest mistakes modern science has made is to try to reconstruct history using science alone. But it can't be done. Since science cannot examine historical events, fictional stories are created about what they think happened. When you use science to tell a fictional story its called science fiction.
Science is limited to the present, and to the material world; science can only help confirm past events, but it cannot prove them. We cannot know who really shot JFK apart from history or who wrote Shakespeare. We only know Newton's and Einstein's discoveries were valid because they can be tested fully today. We cannot reproduce the event that created the first living cell, but we can examine the processes within a living cell today. We cannot reproduce the events that created man, but we can examine biological changes today. But if the creation of man was not an evolutionary biological event, science will never find the answer.
Carter Price
Every scientific "fact" we rely on has to be provable today, otherwise it is faith based fiction. We tend to confuse the fact that the science that helps us in our daily lives. The science that gives us medicines, computers, cars, TV dinners and took us to the moon is not the same science that tells us fish turned into birds, and chance can turn a monkey into a mathematician.
What if the instructions to your microwave said "When you press the START button the microwave might start."
The forces and chemical properties that allow computers and medicines to work are natural and operate the same way every day. Your appliances and medicines never have to be recalled because the physics or chemical properties that science understood when they were created have changed. The properties of chemicals and physics are assumed to be absolutes. And we all, consciously or unconsciously, accept these absolutes. We can design a computer, build it and expect it to work because the natural forces that make it work don't change. They are absolutes. What theoretical scientists are often not careful about is placing their inference, deductive and inductive reasoning in place of data and real world physics and chemistry. This is in effect what evolutionism has taught us to do. If we ignore the possibility of intelligence or assume that it was not involved in a process, our conclusions will be greatly skewed no matter how good the data is.
Nathan Young
They can just circlejerk each other, there's nothing we can do to prevent them from racking up extra (You) from colluding.
That's the secret for (You) farming, just have likeminded fellows and game the system.
Kevin Moore
Both creationists and evolutionists believe that life had a beginning, but neither can observe that beginning. If the beginning was natural, then we should be able to reproduce those steps, not just theoretically, but in actuality, without using an intelligently based process or mechanism to bridge any gaps. If life has a Creator, then science will not be able to reproduce the steps that lead up to life without using intelligence.
We already have more than a centuries worth of data from studying natural processes to see if they are capable of assembling life. Not a single step has been confirmed without using intelligence to bridge the gaps. Science has proved that the natural formation of life is highly unlikely and if you are willing to accept the data, the natural formation of life is impossible. What science is producing in the lab is equivalent to a random scribble when a blueprint is required. The assumed evolutionary processes to get from the scribble to the blueprint are known to be inadequate.
If we can't study the event of the creation directly, then what can a study designed to reproduce the event tell us? First we have to decide what event we are trying to reproduce. Since no man was there to observe or record the creation event anything we decide on will be fictional. We have no way of confirming its accuracy. We can assume however, that if we do find a way that works, it may be the right one. But in reality, in order to reproduce an historical event we have to have some record of that event.
Noah Williams
Where do you suppose one would find YEC quotes and citations?
Think super hard!
Connor Anderson
samefag.
The problem with both views, a purely natural origin as opposed to an intelligently designed origin, is the same in regards to scientific confirmation. If you believe in evolution, you have a fictional first event that science cannot confirm. So by faith you must believe it could happen, based on a process science has yet to confirm. If you believe in creation you have the intervention of an intelligent being, God, which science is also unable to confirm. The point is that no matter what view you believe, verification on the origin of life is not going to be scientific. It is going to be based on faith. The foundation of that faith therefore is a very important issue.
So, scientific confirmation for natural origins boils down to attempting to show that the laws of chemistry and physics make it inevitable. It must now rely on the idea that similarities are evidence of the evolutionary process, in spite of what chemistry and physics are showing us. On the other hand we have millions of examples of creation by intelligent design, from the simple writing of a letter, to the building of a satellite and everything in between. While these are not examples of the creation of life, we can use these as examples of those types of systems that require intelligence as opposed to those that do not.
Jace Garcia
Sometimes we can examine an intelligent design by reverse engineering the products produced by it. We do this by disassembling a machine or design or program to see how it works and then we attempt to make one based on what we've discovered. And that process uses science. We can even make improvements to the design to suit our needs and desires. This is essentially what they are doing with genetic engineering. Right now, using techniques developed by science they are pulling DNA apart, observing to see how it works, and in some cases rebuilding it to suit their fancy, such as with genetically engineered foods. It is interesting that we call this "genetic engineering", when in reality we have only engineered a tiny fraction and rely on the bulk of the existing design. It should be called reverse engineering, because scientists didn't design the system they only learned a small part of it then re-engineered it.
The fact is that the origin of life, whether by natural chemical processes or by supernatural intervention is not available for scientific study. So the creation of life is a mystery to science and will remain that way. Many cannot accept this, because its confirmation is needed to verify their philosophical precepts.
Where did the information contained in DNA come from? It had to come from somewhere. It either arose from the natural properties of atoms and molecules or some intelligent being put it there. And if intelligent design is the cause there are more important questions to ask than how it happened. Not to say that "how it happened" questions are not important, but that these questions are not enough. Why did it happen and who did it? The Bible, not science provides the answer to these questions. The best way to study the creation of anything is to seek out the Creator.
Andrew Ross
We are faced with two choices as to where the specified complexity in all life originated. It either evolved through millions of lucky accidents, which even according to evolutionists is highly unlikely, or it was created. Creation is the only rational choice, because evolution fails to explain why specified complexity would arise spontaneously again and again and again.
For evolution the spontaneous appearance of specified complexity cannot be ignored because information is the centerpiece of life. You can have all the molecules for life available, but without information, or if the information is lost, life doesn't happen. The three major elements of evolution do not aid in any way in the creation of information.
Natural Selection: only maintains what information is created by variation and mutation. It cannot act on any information that doesn't exist. Observational science has actually shown that natural selection only slows the erosion of information in life, and this function is due only to the way life is designed. So natural selection is not the source of specified complexity in life.
Variation: is based on existing information, that is, specification that already existed. And while it can create many new combinations of this information, it does not create "new" information. Variation is not the source of specified complexity in life.
Mutation: destroys information, reduces specified complexity. Geneticists have known for quite some time that mutations are not beneficial; they are either neutral or harmful. And even neutral mutations build up over time to become harmful. Random changes, mistakes, misplacements in DNA does not improve the information, it destroys it. Mutation therefore cannot be the source of specified complexity in life.
There is only one known source of specified complexity. Intelligence. Life was intelligently designed. There should be no question about it.
Tyler Ross
Nonsense Reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design
>Science cannot determine if a transcendent designer exists. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound. The answer depends on how you define sound. If sound is the vibrations made by the tree moving through the surrounding air and ground then, no one is required to hear it for it to be sound. If sound requires an intelligent receptor, then sound only exists when it is heard. In either case, the vibrations are still present. Science is incapable of examining anything that does not exist in the present material universe; it cannot examine a sound unless there is an intelligent receptor to hear it. Science cannot examine intelligence until it manifests itself in the material world. For example, science cannot examine an "idea", until the idea produces an action, i.e. speech, writing, movement, creativity. An "idea" must be communicated for science to examine it. That does not mean that ideas cannot exist until science can prove they are there, or that they are irrelevant until they manifest themselves in some way. So the fact that science cannot determine if a transcendent designer exists cannot be a reason for rejecting intelligent design. It also should raise the question of how successful a belief system will be when it is based only on what science can discover.
Jaxson Powell
>Intelligent design is just an argument against evolution, i.e. a reaction by religion against evolution. The "Intelligent Design" movement is relatively new, but the idea that life was intelligent design is not a new idea at all, therefore it is not a reaction to evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is actually the reaction to and a rejection of the Biblical view of origins. If you go back a few hundred years to the turn of the 18th century you will find the birth of modern day evolution, but it was not born in a vacuum of ideas. Most people at the time believed that life had a "designer" or creator and that science supported those ideas.
One of the goals of the materialists of that time was to show that everything occurred by natural processes, without the intervention of a creator. Evolution was immediately accepted by many on very scanty and circumstantial evidence because it filled a logical hole in materialistic philosophy. One of the objectives of materialists was to destroy the power of the church by proving the Bible was wrong. So if we go back far enough we see that the 18th century idea of evolution was rooted in the desire to find arguments against intelligent design, more specifically, Biblical creation. The modern Intelligent Design movement is one that began inside secular science, by scientists who could no longer reconcile the facts of biology with the theory of evolution and maintain the dogma that evolution is an established fact.
Charles Martinez
Why crank blogs and not peer reviewed journals? Let me guess, a conspiracy against you.
Josiah Kelly
>Belief in molecules to man evolution is required for biology. There are many scientists who reject evolution, for scientific reasons. Statements like "Scientists agree that evolution is a fact" are one of the culprits behind the idea that evolution is indeed scientific "hard" fact. What is actually happening is that scientists who disagree aren't counted. This creates the illusion that evolution has consensus in science for those who either don't want to investigate or don't want to accept the truth. There are cases where evolutionary thought has actually hindered medical and biological science, such as claiming tonsils and the appendix as being useless, and calling portions of DNA "junk". Science has always been disconnected from evolution. Evolution was claimed to be fact before the data to support it was available. Every biological discovery is uncritically defined by evolutionists within the scope of evolution. Challenges to the theory are discouraged. This means critical thought is hindered, analysis is directed away from other possibilities and assumptions of evolution are put in place of scientific data. It seems that evolution is a hindrance to science, rather than a requirement for it.
Elijah Garcia
>Intelligent design is an argument from ignorance. If the origin of something can't be explained through science does it mean that it must be intelligently designed? When science doesn't have an answer do we automatically insert God? This is known as the "God of the gaps" argument. Yet science has yet to discover how even one functional system in a living cell could form through unguided natural processes. Evolution is assumed. The argument from ignorance would state that "Since we don't understand how it happened, it must be God." In essence however the counter argument presented by evolutionists is also an argument from ignorance, "Since we didn't see God do it, it must have a natural cause." So when evolution comes up against a biological system that is oozing design they are baffled because they have already concluded these things only happen naturally. It's self imposed ignorance. The fact is that the story of evolution is filled with gaps, and the gaps can be filled with anything an evolutionist can imagine and most often are.
But that's not science. It also takes advantage of the fact that challenges to imaginary events can't be countered with scientific data. The question is, at what point do you decide that nature is not capable of creating life and that an intelligent cause has to be the answer? This point must exist, even for a materialist. The issue is actually faith. Evolutionists who are ignorant of how something happened are, by faith, consoled by the idea that science will someday provide answers. An argument from ignorance.
Brody Turner
On the other hand those who believe in a creator recognize that the universe and life look designed and that they look that way because they were designed. Essentially both sides, evolution and creation are ignorant of the exact process that would allow for the chemical and biological evolution of life.
Evolutionists, by faith, believe that science will answer this question affirmatively at some future point. That is the argument from ignorance. Those who accept intelligent design believe that enough scientific evidence already exists to confirm that molecule to man evolution does not and could not have taken place. That is an argument from what we know, not from ignorance.
Noah Gray
>Arguments for Intelligent Design just point out weaknesses in evolution; there are no real evidences for Intelligent Design. The ideas on this page do not have physical form, they are communicated however through a physical medium. It is easier to examine what is written than to try to probe the mind for these same thoughts. So in order to show the need for intelligence at times it is easier to demonstrate by showing the limitations of a natural alternative. We don't know of any natural alternative that can produce ideas, but we do know that intelligence can produce ideas. Intelligence can however be the cause of anything we examine. Intelligence can randomly arrange rocks that might look exactly the same as those produced by natural forces. If I were to set down a grain of sand on a specific spot on a beach, how would you tell the one that was placed there from the others that were washed in by the waves? So essentially intelligence can be responsible for many things that we may attribute to natural causes. We can't tell how many grains of sand once belonged to a sand castle. At the same time, when we come across a sand castle, we recognize that sand does not take that form naturally. For the last 50 years scientists have attempted to reproduce natural conditions that would create molecules that could be used by life. They have failed. Conversely, in a hundred years would a scientist be able to tell that a scientist had genetically altered DNA without referring to the written records?
The problem is not as simple as recognizing patterns we are familiar with. It's obvious a sand castle is intelligently designed, because we build sand castles. Complex arrangements that we are either unfamiliar with or that we do not design ourselves are not as easily recognized as being designed. A mound of dirt can turn out to be an ant hill. And in that case, the mound has an intelligent cause.
Dominic Martin
How do you tell the difference between DNA that's been designed or has happened by a multitude of accidents? We can mistake a mound of dirt for an accident, but not a sand castle. Does DNA compare better with a mound of dirt or a sand castle? The fact is there is nothing unusual or incorrect about using weaknesses in an argument as evidence. That is, if the two ideas cannot both be true, if one is true then the other must be false. If natural processes are capable of changing molecules to man then a creator is unnecessary. However, if natural processes cannot change molecules to man a creator must be necessary.
The problem is that in order to completely get rid of the idea of a creator using science every step of evolution would have to be fully explained and provable before a creator could not be invoked by someone. And yet, if there is a creator, a fully natural explanation will never be found no matter how much we learn or how long we search. So you get a similar result in either case. When do you decide that natural forces are not capable? If you're committed to a natural explanation, the answer is, never.
So, in essence the final evidence for an intelligent designer would have to come from the designer, since science cannot take that road. Science has already shown that natural processes are incapable of producing or evolving life i.e. molecules to man. It's purely faith based to believe that this is not evidence for intelligent design.
Dylan Reyes
>Evolution is science, Intelligent Design is religious This is no more than attempting to draw the discussion away from the real issues. People are religious, not facts. Whether something is intelligently designed or not is not changed by the beliefs of the people observing it. The question is, if nature can't do it then who, not what did. If there is a designer then what becomes of science? Does it operate the same as it did before? Of course it does. Science will probably not be able to discover the creator, but it can continue to discover the creation. Yet, the need for a designer certainly has been revealed by science. So if you want to discover the designer what do you do? Examining a jar of peanut butter is not going to tell you anything about the person or persons who designed it. At best you can infer a few things like they are probably not allergic to peanuts. But in the end, if you want to know the designers, you are going have to take your Peanut Butter research papers and go to see them.
To be sure, what you believe is at the heart of what evidence you are willing to accept by faith. It is clearly astounding how much faith carries the "fact" of evolution. Evolution (molecules to man) cannot be "science" unless the faith is removed, and that is currently not possible. The "fact" of evolution is confirmed by faith in future discoveries. On the other hand, Intelligent Design does have a strong basis in what science is demonstrating now, therefore science confirms the faith that there is a designer, rather than faith confirming the facts as in evolution. And we can pick up our research papers and go and find the designer, in his Word, and through prayer. That's in addition to, not a replacement of, science.
Dylan Parker
If religion means anything where God or a god is acknowledged, then Intelligent Design has a foundation in both science and religion. Evolution however is not pure science, but a mixture of science, stories and a mystical blind faith that the future will prove that God isn't needed. Call it what you may, but that sounds like religion to me.
Brandon Morgan
>Believing in an Intelligent Designer is just a leap of blind faith Which is the greater leap of faith? To believe there is a creator or to believe that all the information and intelligence that resulted in life on earth and that of human civilization, culture, art and thought could have come from simple unguided chemical combinations. But that's not the question. Is it blind faith to believe in a creator? I would have to say, yes, if there were no evidence. But there is evidence. There is prophecy, history, science and personal experience. So it's not blind faith to believe in a creator, there is too much evidence to rationally deny it. The only thing you can do is choose to believe that all the evidence is contrived or misinterpreted. But you can't deny its there.
On the other hand, evolution is built on myriads of non-verifiable events. From the initial conditions in which chemical life formed, where the first event happened, when it happened, how the first replicating molecules came about, how they began to code for organelles and cell structures, how the first cells formed, how the first eukaryote formed, the first nerve cells, the first amniotic egg, the first live birth, the first eyes, the first brains, the first legs, the first wings, the first fins etc. How did sonar systems, electrical sensors and chemical signaling come about? What about navigation systems that imprint on stars, or the earth's magnetism? We could go on forever. Most evolutionists reduce the explanation to "natural selection" which in essence explains nothing. Natural selection only maintains the gene pool, it does not create a single DNA sequence. Telling logically consistent stories only bolsters the myth.
So is it greater faith to believe that there is a designer, when external evidence not only suggests he is there, but proves it to many? Or is it greater faith to believe in millions of unseen, unexplainable statistical miracles?
Gavin Murphy
>Intelligent design is an intellectual cop-out. Is saying "God did it" unsatisfying? Only if it's the wrong answer. For instance saying that 2+2=5 is unsatisfying because we know it's the wrong answer. But when evolutionists continue to find the wrong answer at the end of their investigation, they assume the data is the problem. Is there really not enough data yet? You see, evolutionists start with an answer. It doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't add up, they believe that someday it will, because for them God is the wrong answer. One reason a designer is unsatisfactory is because, it makes looking for any further "evolutionary" answers unnecessary. They don't want God to be involved, because their goal is to have evolutionary answers for the whole of history. Not so much to find the truth, but to confirm the truth they already believe. This creates a problem. If two scientists are examining an organism and one is trying to discover how it works, but the other is trying to discover what its ancestors were like 5 million years ago, there will be a conflict. Ultimately how it works now is going to have a far greater impact on science today than guesses about what its ancestors were like 5 million years ago. Something that happened five million years ago cannot be substantiated by anything more than consensus. So, if someone has examined the evidence and comes to the conclusion that intelligence was needed, how is this an intellectual cop out? It's simply going to lead them down a different road of investigation and discovery and discovery and discovery...
Aiden Gonzalez
>There is not enough material to study intelligent design. This objection specifically refers to teaching intelligent design in the schools. That is, there are not enough books on intelligent design or educators who are familiar with it. Well then, let's get our education system up to speed. The reason why there may be a scarcity of materials is because the idea of intelligent design has been suppressed if not banned from public education for over half a century. But, as our knowledge of the specified complexity in life grows it is becoming harder and harder to suppress the obvious. Evolutionists have worked hard trying to verify evolutionary claims, but instead have uncovered a complex, integrated coded system that even they agree looks designed. Intelligent design is a challenge they don't welcome. There are already massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design. Every experiment that shows natural processes can't get from evolutionary point A to evolutionary point B raises the question of an intelligent designer. Imaginary stories of how life got from point A to point B shouldn't be acceptable in science. And they shouldn't be concocted as a failsafe against thinking about a designer. But that is all evolutionary beliefs can offer. The question of intelligence is anathema, not allowed, banned. Banned subjects result in the following: a lack of material, fewer people who are aware of or understand the problem, and more people who blindly adhere to the dogma that is allowed. The education system has been pumping out scientists that cannot think critically about evolution, its time to get realistic materials into the science classroom.
Jose Cruz
Also, suppressing avenues of thought, especially in the area of science, dampens creativity and increases intellectual lethargy. Answers in science come not from simply knowing the processes and the math, but from being able to creatively and critically think about the data the processes produce. The materials to study intelligent design and be critical of evolution are not lacking. Our educational system is suffering as a result of not allowing intelligent design as a possibility. It has already taken its toll. Science educators and scientists are told to resist and ignore ideas critical to evolution and trust the authority of the properly sanctioned experts.
Fortunately many scientists and educators are trying to counter the dogma from the "evolution only" crowd to allow critical thinking in the classroom. It may seem odd that the academic freedom that was once a hallmark of our nation is now under attack by the very institutions that once held it high, but as the evidence against the evolutionary paradigm mounts those who have rested their worldview and careers on it will either have to re-evaluate or resist critical thinking and academic freedom.
Joshua Sanders
One of the arguments that evolutionists often put forth is that there are many poorly designed systems in life. This, they claim is evidence of evolution. Why? If God was the designer the design would have been better. So the logical conclusion is that it must have evolved. Not only that, but often they will present an alternate design or at least imply that someone else could easily re-design whatever system or structure they are complaining about. This is a very poor argument. It hinges on how they perceive God rather than the capabilities of nature. This makes the argument metaphysical. The fact that it seems to reoccur within evolutionary literature is a testament to the weakness of their scientific arguments for evolution.
Are we the ones that determine the standards of perfection? What makes a design better or worse? "Better" relative to what? Who decides what level of functionality is acceptable? What man made designs and plans for life have prototypes or have been tested and put in to use? Has anyone designed an organ or feature that can unfold from a single cell to an adult form? Does augmenting life to fit our desires imply intelligent design or evolution? Do evolutionists know what a designer would design if a designer designed life?
They claim that life does not fit their preconception about what a creator would create. They therefore claim to conclude life must not have a designer. In reality they already believe life does not have an intelligent designer and are looking for ways to get away from the very obvious conclusion that it does.
Let's take this point by point.
Camden Parker
1. Is it true that if God created it, it would have been different? The argument from bad design is based on how evolutionists define the character of God. Obviously, God would not have used DNA; he would have come up with alternate molecules capable of handling genetic codes as needed. Therefore DNA was not designed. Obviously God would not have used similar structures; he would have invented entirely new ones for each creature. So the fact that a bat flies with exquisite precision, a porpoise can live and navigate in water and we can translate thoughts in our heads to motions in our fingers and hit the right keys on the typewriter with a similar arrangement of bones is evidence that God would not have done it. The idea that similarity automatically means evolutionary relationship is a major blind spot in evolutionary thinking. There is no reason to assume that a creator would not use similar designs in different organisms.
2. Even bad designs require a designer. Whether something has to be the product of intelligence has nothing to do with whether the design is good or bad. Both good and bad designs can have a designer. Many bad designs have come from very intelligent people. In fact many bad designs have been very successful, simply because nothing else is available. So finding a system in life that seems poorly designed is not evidence of evolution.
Dylan Gutierrez
3. Apart from a designer perfection is arbitrary. Because evolutionists believe there is no designer, they tend to believe that their word on the quality of the design is final. But perfection is based on the standard set by the designer or designers. We should know from our own experience with human designs, that even a bad design requires intelligence. Yet evolutionists maintain that the "bad" design of living systems is evidence against intelligent design. They look at the designs of living systems and find something they claim is flawed. Most often the reason they see a flaw is because they don't fully understand what it is they are examining. For instance there once was a long list of vestigial organs and structures. That is, organs and structures that had no known function and were assumed to be useless remnants of our evolutionary ancestry. One by one these organs have been eliminated from the list as we learn more about life. The list is actually a measure of the ignorance of the evolutionists that compiled it rather than evidence for evolution. There are also many reasons why a good design may appear "bad." A good design can be misused, misunderstood, or a good design can appear bad simply because it's not what we wanted. That is, our reasons for seeing something as bad can be purely subjective.
Logan Green
4. There are no engineers, biologists or any other scientists that can design life. The quote above saying that an "an engineer starting from scratch could design a better limb in each case" is just plain stupid. No engineer has yet to design any living system from the molecules up. No molecular biologists has designed any biological system without starting with life or the ideas gleaned from what they know of life.
What evolutionists do is they find things in life that they don't like or wish would do something else, then draw pictures of their ideas and say they re-designed it. Drawing pictures or creating computer programs of what you think life should be like is not the same as actually designing something and putting it to the test. When those who claim the eye is designed backwards can create a "proper" eye and have it work in a real person, well, then it will prove you need intelligence to create anything as complex as an eye. And it still won't prove the original eye, which is sensitive to a single photon of light, is flawed.
In real science, the reverse actually happens. Biologists look at life to learn. They look at life to see if they can improve or create man made systems. This is called biomimicry, and it is based on the fact that life is brilliantly designed.
Gabriel James
5. We live in a fallen world On the sixth day God declared that the creation was "very good." The world is obviously not very good, and the Bible declares this.
"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Romans 8:22
This world has changed dramatically since its creation. The world that was very good no longer exists. Life is now in a state of imperfection. Yet even in this state, it still exhibits the harmony, imagination, wisdom and ineluctable genius of the creator.* *(Note, the words harmony, imagination, wisdom and ineluctable genius are the exact words an evolutionist used to describe the blind chance mutations of 3.8 billion years of evolution. Talk about blind.)
Caleb Hernandez
6. Precision is not an accident Imagine a horse running across uneven terrain without a pause, weaving in and out among the other horses in the heard, seemingly effortlessly. Imagine a man made six legged robot slowly inching its way ungracefully across the same terrain. Inside the horse neurons are firing billions of times a second, smoothly coordinating the horse's graceful stride, powered by natural non-polluting energy converted by its digestive system from plants in the surrounding environment. The robots clumsy movements, powered by toxic chemicals, being guided by a skillfully written man made program or a man with a remote standing behind the bushes. The horse can react swiftly to changing conditions, to other horses, to men, birds, rain or snow, hills or slopes. The robot has no consciousness of anything. It could be in a lab, in a field or in a trash can and it would not know the difference. The horse stops to rest when it is tired, feed when it needs energy. The robot just stops.
It's not just the horse that we can look at, it is every living organism on the planet. From the molecules up, life operates with astonishing precision. An intelligently designed robot by comparison almost seems like a piece of junk. Yet robots represent hundreds of thousands of mind hours. Hours spent by people, thinking, designing, creating, utilizing their intelligence. The idea that life was intelligently designed was dismissed by many scientists over a hundred years before we understood what was really going on inside life, before we realized how a signal from the brain could travel to a specific muscle and contract it in unison with muscles all over the body. Intelligent design was rejected a hundred years before it was understood that proteins must be precise and are constructed by going through many stages of production and quality control.
Matthew Perez
Evolutionist will shy away from the topic of the origin of life when in mixed company and attempt to claim it's a non issue. In spite of this denial it is part of most evolutionary storylines. Evolution was never accepted because scientific data demanded it. Its appeal has always been that it eliminated the need for God and because it presents a logical framework that works well as long as you don't find it necessary to verify the details.
Question: What was the actual date that molecules to man was proven by using the scientific method?
When evolution was first introduced and accepted, geologists believed that most rock layers were laid down over millions of years and that it took a long time for fossils to form. We now know that rock layers and many geologic processes that were once considered to form geologically slow actually form rapidly, sometimes in only a few hours. We also know that fossils form when they are rapidly buried in sediment or volcanic flows, contrary to the slow processes once thought to form fossils. Even so, the slow fossil formation scenario is the one that merits the long discussions and diagrams in evolutionary literature.
Hudson Flores
When evolution was first introduced and accepted, the science of the day had determined that the universe was infinite, static and had always existed, i.e. unlimited time and space and material for evolution to take place. We now know that the universe is finite, expanding and had a beginning.
When evolution was first introduced and accepted, spontaneous generation was a fact, variation was unlimited and cells were just simple blobs of living matter. There was no information in the cell and the laws of heredity were a mystery to all but a single person, who happened to be a Christian. Today we know that variation is limited by heredity, and that the cell is full of information and incredibly complex.
Where did Darwin and his contemporaries look for evidence of the molecules to man change needed to prove his theory? Rather than biology they looked to the rocks. The rocks contained the evidence of the assumed biological process of evolution. Surprisingly, that remains largely unchanged. Not because the rocks are the best place to study biology, but because when you look at the rocks, the biological changes can be imagined. The fact is that even today, biology denies that evolution is possible.
Cooper Torres
How many ways can a guy say the same thing before it counts as spam?
Samuel Richardson
The fact of the matter is that the evolutionists do not want to allow a debate between evolutionary theory and "something else" in the laboratories, in the publications, in the classrooms, in the media, in the field or in the institutions. The goal of science is to know, to understand. The process of science may flourish when we are still trying to understand, it keeps the scientists employed, fills the conference room with debates within the theory, but it hasn't accomplished the goal. Science may flourish between the known and the unknown, because a search for something that doesn't exist can use a lot of time and energy. But it seems that a fairly simple concept is being missed. Until something is known it is still unknown. Until evolutionists have reached the "scientific" goal, there is no "fact" of evolution. At least not one based on science. The reality however is that science has already reached its goal on the question of evolution. Molecules to man, did not, does not and will not happen through natural processes alone, intelligence is a prerequisite.
The theory of evolution hinders science.
Austin White
>"Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships" When used as evidence for evolution it becomes circular reasoning. Similarities can have two origins, design or ancestry. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Another problem is that similarities don't explain the differences. Evolution is about the differences, the change. If evolution did it, explain how the differences can and will occur. There are many features that can prove that similarity is not the result of common ancestry. Evolutionists have even given these evidences a name, convergent and parallel evolution. Convergent evolution is due, according to evolutionists, to similar behaviors or environments producing similar structures. How does the DNA know what mutations it needs to turn an arm into a wing or leg into a fin, or a fin into a leg? The fascinating thing about convergent evolution is that is showing up all over the place, right down to the mechanisms in the cell.
So, similarity indicates ancestral relationships, except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't that should be an indicator of intelligent design. The better explanation is that the similar structures were designed for similar needs. That makes a lot of sense, but it's anti-evolutionary.
>Oh no my worldview is being shattered, quick mods silence him! Facts don't care about your feelings. Creation/Evolution debate is part of Humanities.
Carter Gonzalez
>Evolution however is not pure science, but a mixture of science, stories and a mystical blind faith that the future will prove that God isn't needed. This is really your core misconception and the source of this entire circus, you are projecting your biases onto nonreligious concepts, reinterpreting them as a COMPETING religion. I don't know what it would take for you to realize that this is all made up in your head and doesn't reflect the real world at all. The specific things you are arguing against simply don't exist, you made them up out of various parts of different philosophies that conflict with your dogmatic obligations.
I mean, if you don't care and want to continue copypasting these screeds on this anime porn website, that's fine. But I want to provide a token reply in case anyone is reading this.
Easton Allen
Parallel evolution occurs when similar features develop without any particular connection to behavior or to the environment. How does that happen? Just coincidence? But it does provide even more evidence that similarity doesn't mean common ancestry.
Have you heard the popular myth spread by evolutionists that chimps and humans are genetically 98% to 99% identical? After examining the DNA sequences in more detail over the years scientists have now dropped the number to 94%. And the examination is not done yet. The 98% is the result of stacking the deck and selecting genes they already thought to be similar and then comparing only 1% of the genomes of both species. Wait for the gap to grow farther still. Even so, evolution needs to explain the vast differences, not the similarities.
Ian Wood
No, its part of science, but you dont post there because people with biology degrees would tear you apart, so you post here where we have liberal arts degrees
