Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting supposition; I don't think Satan creates anything other than confusion and turmoil. The presence of God being subdued as it is, seriously effects the human perception of him, because we rely on too many humans who claim to speak for him, for their depressing and futile views. The lack of Gods presence is really a type of curse on humanity, we see through a dark glass; and don't have a clue.
Then I suppose Satan couldn't make craters or possessions. The seeming lack of God's presence would only be bad if he was a Messenger (angel) of goodness... not if he was dictating his own subjective wills based merely on a vainful pride in having existed first and being most-powerful.
Also, How hard could it be for a supposedly powerful creature like Lucifer to change energy from one form to another? reality creates confusion and turmoil... science tries to organize experience so that we can lessen confusion and turmoil.
Then I suppose Satan couldn't make craters or possessions. The seeming lack of God's presence would only be bad if he was a Messenger (angel) of goodness... not if he was dictating his own subjective wills based merely on a vainful pride in having existed first and being most-powerful.
Also, How hard could it be for a supposedly powerful creature like Lucifer to change energy from one form to another? reality creates confusion and turmoil... science tries to organize experience so that we can lessen confusion and turmoil.
Well lucifer is not Satan in my view, two entirely different people. I think Lucifer is a man spoken of in scripture. Satan is not a human. On Satans ability to change energy from one form to another; I am not quite sure about that one, you could be right there; I just don't know what that thing could really do in that area.
This Morning's Detailed Study Plan, prepared especially for Mickiel!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
The age of dinosaurs are incredible proof of God. It is impossible for raw nature to create and design, then bring to life flying and marine reptiles, diversification of smaller mammals; conifer forests; where did nature get the intelligence to accomplish these? And then abruptly kill them at the end of a period? It took design and intelligent planning to allow the cretaceous period to last 135,000,000 million to 70,000,000. And then begin Jurassic and lead into Triassic; these mesozoic eras were obviously planned by a superior power.
Oh silly boy. You still refuse to do any of your homework assignments, don't you? Otherwise you would not make such statements as:
"It is impossible for raw nature to create and design, then bring to life flying and marine reptiles, diversification of smaller mammals; conifer forests..."
Oh I see. Really huh? Impossible, huh? You're saying, one minute, no flying reptiles, and then POOF, the next, there's a pterodactyl coasting by? I see. Let's just forget where we found them and their obvious predecessors in the geological/sedimentary column ("It's all a lie I tell you! Hovind & Baugh tell us so!") and radio-decay dated chronology ("It's all a lie I tell you! Hovind & Baugh tell us so!"), OK?
Tell me, Mickiel; how exactly does the genome (you do know what that term means, yes? No? You REALLY need to.)change over time? We have ample PROOF (in the literal, not spiritual, sense of that word) that organisms, via their highly changeable genomes do advance from the less organized and capable, in the historic past, to the more organized and capable in the present. What's so hard to comprehend about that, pray tell?
So, taking this to it's logical conclusion, we have lesser organisms existing hundreds of millions of years ago, with their genomes subject to almost daily change as they reproduce by the uncountable quintrillion-gahzillions of times. Each and every single reproduction brings with it the chance for a mutation. A FACT easily shown in the lab today.
Most of these mutations will obviously be lethal (like randomly reaching into the back of your 1950s B&W TV and re-wiring it... You'd probably kill it off, right?) But if it could do that on it's own, with all the possible & necessary alternate components at it's beck & call, and carried out literally bahzillions of times, and then turn itself on and test itself, after a while you truly would, by chance, get better sound, better picture, and so on. It's just logical.
But also note that our DNA is so much simpler than that, and thus far more likely to achieve simple improvements which then build on themselves.
Since the building blocks of all organisms are the remarkably SIMPLE DNA amino acids, made up of a mere 4 (sometimes 5) versions, it's not hard to imagine that these changes would indeed lead to higher, better organized life forms. In fact, though biologists have known this for centuries, Dr. Richard Lenski in Chicago proved, without any doubt, this very accomplishment, by pure chance, in his lab, at the end of a 22 yr long experiment.
Again, you are proving your lack of understanding of The Processes of Evoution. Shall I ask it again? OK:
_________________________________________
Which element(s) of The Process of EvolutionDO NOT WORK as defined by us? Specifically, and why? And please: not another statement of what you don't like about the results of that process. Read the question carefully and answer it honestly. Again, simply: what parts/elements/cohortsdo not function as we say they do, and why?
_________________________________________
Here's some more real simple info, Mickiel. (No-one can ever say I haven't politely provided you with enough valuable and true info for your ongoing education!):
Dr. Lenski provided Proof Positive of naturally chance-occurrent mutation-based speciation in his seminal 2008 publication, Mickiel. Do you wish to debate him, or would you rather just read the summary of his research which, btw, still ongoing to find even more secrets of Evolution? Stand by for even more "amazing" findings!
(this last citation is provided in response to the following Conservative Christian anti-Evolution rabid silliness about Lenski, but being open-mined, I show you the critiques. One must then read and weigh the commentaries for themselves, lest they be libel for the accusation of bias!
OK: that's almost too long an information presentation for you obviously. I'll continue later if you promise to do your reading homework. I'd love to hear your personal summary of Lenski's conclusions! (but absent some C&P criticisms by outraged Xtian pseudo-science orgs please! Hovind can only blog-viate from within his jail cell, after all....)
Suffice to say though; your "Absolute claim" that it's 'too awesome to have been all by chance' simply does not hold water. As well, if this is all a perfect design, how then do you explain all the huge errors, including all of the current, still-evolving human body's flaws and bad designs, esp. when compared, in our physical capabilities, to the great apes.
They don't have lower back problems, kidney stones (position of the outflow due to 4 legged gait, which minimizes or eliminates their initial formation),our crowded so-called "wisdom teeth" (a sign instead of a lack of design "wisdom"...), and our hip and knee weaknesses in bipedal motion.
Those obvious shortcomings seem to go entirely un-noticed by our typical awestruck Christian friends. Doesn't "fit" the argument, so delete it!
Oh silly boy. You still refuse to do any of your homework assignments, don't you? Otherwise you would not make such statements as:
"It is impossible for raw nature to create and design, then bring to life flying and marine reptiles, diversification of smaller mammals; conifer forests..."
Oh I see. Really huh? Impossible, huh? You're saying, one minute, no flying reptiles, and then POOF, the next, there's a pterodactyl coasting by? I see. Let's just forget where we found them and their obvious predecessors in the geological/sedimentary column ("It's all a lie I tell you! Hovind & Baugh tell us so!") and radio-decay dated chronology ("It's all a lie I tell you! Hovind & Baugh tell us so!"), OK?
Tell me, Mickiel; how exactly does the genome (you do know what that term means, yes? No? You REALLY need to.)change over time? We have ample PROOF (in the literal, not spiritual, sense of that word) that organisms, via their highly changeable genomes do advance from the less organized and capable, in the historic past, to the more organized and capable in the present. What's so hard to comprehend about that, pray tell?
So, taking this to it's logical conclusion, we have lesser organisms existing hundreds of millions of years ago, with their genomes subject to almost daily change as they reproduce by the uncountable quintrillion-gahzillions of times. Each and every single reproduction brings with it the chance for a mutation. A FACT easily shown in the lab today.
Most of these mutations will obviously be lethal (like randomly reaching into the back of your 1950s B&W TV and re-wiring it... You'd probably kill it off, right?) But if it could do that on it's own, with all the possible & necessary alternate components at it's beck & call, and carried out literally bahzillions of times, and then turn itself on and test itself, after a while you truly would, by chance, get better sound, better picture, and so on. It's just logical.
But also note that our DNA is so much simpler than that, and thus far more likely to achieve simple improvements which then build on themselves.
Since the building blocks of all organisms are the remarkably SIMPLE DNA amino acids, made up of a mere 4 (sometimes 5) versions, it's not hard to imagine that these changes would indeed lead to higher, better organized life forms. In fact, though biologists have known this for centuries, Dr. Richard Lenski in Chicago proved, without any doubt, this very accomplishment, by pure chance, in his lab, at the end of a 22 yr long experiment.
Again, you are proving your lack of understanding of The Processes of Evoution. Shall I ask it again? OK:
_________________________________________
Which element(s) of The Process of EvolutionDO NOT WORK as defined by us? Specifically, and why? And please: not another statement of what you don't like about the results of that process. Read the question carefully and answer it honestly. Again, simply: what parts/elements/cohortsdo not function as we say they do, and why?
_________________________________________
Here's some more real simple info, Mickiel. (No-one can ever say I haven't politely provided you with enough valuable and true info for your ongoing education!):
Dr. Lenski provided Proof Positive of naturally chance-occurrent mutation-based speciation in his seminal 2008 publication, Mickiel. Do you wish to debate him, or would you rather just read the summary of his research which, btw, still ongoing to find even more secrets of Evolution? Stand by for even more "amazing" findings!
(this last citation is provided in response to the following Conservative Christian anti-Evolution rabid silliness about Lenski, but being open-mined, I show you the critiques. One must then read and weigh the commentaries for themselves, lest they be libel for the accusation of bias!
OK: that's almost too long an information presentation for you obviously. I'll continue later if you promise to do your reading homework. I'd love to hear your personal summary of Lenski's conclusions! (but absent some C&P criticisms by outraged Xtian pseudo-science orgs please! Hovind can only blog-viate from within his jail cell, after all....)
Suffice to say though; your "Absolute claim" that it's 'too awesome to have been all by chance' simply does not hold water. As well, if this is all a perfect design, how then do you explain all the huge errors, including all of the current, still-evolving human body's flaws and bad designs, esp. when compared, in our physical capabilities, to the great apes.
They don't have lower back problems, kidney stones (position of the outflow due to 4 legged gait, which minimizes or eliminates their initial formation),our crowded so-called "wisdom teeth" (a sign instead of a lack of design "wisdom"...), and our hip and knee weaknesses in bipedal motion.
Those obvious shortcomings seem to go entirely un-noticed by our typical awestruck Christian friends. Doesn't "fit" the argument, so delete it!
I don't buy the " Give nature time it will eventually get lucky and get it right arguement." I buy into the creator is not limited to instant creations, and can create things both instantly, or evolving, and at all levels inbetween. That is the nature of such a power, its not limited to time and error; it can do anything and anyhow!
It's just too awesome to believe. There are suns billions of times larger than our sun. Thats NOT luck! Thats AWESOME, and requires and demands an awesome source.
I don't buy the " Give nature time it will eventually get lucky and get it right arguement." I buy into the creator is not limited to instant creations, and can create things both instantly, or evolving, and at all levels inbetween. That is the nature of such a power, its not limited to time and error; it can do anything and anyhow!
It's just too awesome to believe. There are suns billions of times larger than our sun. Thats NOT luck! Thats AWESOME, and requires and demands an awesome source.
"Billions of times larger"? Not quite. (Else, links please, not braggadoccio and exaggeration just to be "awestruck"... ) Some suns a lot larger than ours? Yep. But so what? We live near a moderate sized star, halfways through it's life, with Man just a blip in its system elements, all of it & us destined to future extermination unless, via scientific research and hard work, we learn how to "exit stage right" within the next few million years and get the heck outa here on cue. Or, a stray macro-meteor will do it all next month, BAAAMMMM!!!! ...and no Golden Ship will come a'docking to pick anyone up!
"Life" doesn't have to "get lucky" either, in order to improve and advance. Luck is NOT a factor in the main; just built-in biochemical logic. What's "right" is simply another version of an existing molecule, but also one that happens, quite easily, to do something better. And it can and does build on itself by a very "logical" process, Mickiel.
A pure chance occurrence would be where an organism suddenly becomes something entirely different in function and/or appearance and/or habitat. A rat becoming a dandelion, or a frog becoming a bird, overnight. The outstanding advantage with DNA is that it remembers it's past configuration(s) but also undergoes and "enjoys" that constant mutational rate. That rate, it's frequency and it's locations in the genome can and have been both observed and mapped.
And so, it's NEVER starting out at a ""ZERO" starting position. It's already part-ways there. So initially, for example, while it can only partially metabolize some nutrient and not very efficiently, then along comes, after oh let's say a few billion mutations, a minor alteration in it's biochemical ability to better latch onto one of those inert nutrient molecules and then "digest" it.
Or perhaps do it within a broader heat range, so it's "seasonal survival window" is improved; it doesn't have to go into molecular hibernation when annual seasonal temp changes occur. Thus, while it's less-adapted predecessor cousin remains on the scene, the new type/kind/species expands it's presence there, possibly (tho' not necessarily) eventually crowding out the old guy. Or not. Or perhaps it expands it's physical home range, allowing it to move to a more northerly and less contentious and competitive environment.
And so we have similar organisms occupying adjacent niches, or ancestors. Mammoths vs. elephants for instance, or antelopes vs. smaller antelopes. Thompson's Gazelles vs. Dik-dik gazelles, each seemingly utilizing the same grassland ecosystem but neither crowding the other.
Over time measured in millions, if not billions of years, those small accumulating changes seem to provide an astonishing array of super-well adapted organisms that, yes, if they did POOF onto the scene all at once, would, I agree, be "Awesome". But given the inerrant ability of the DNA molecule to remember and therefore build on it's past as the mutations occur (and they do, inarguably),we see such a rich array of logic-designed organisms. No drsign necessary, except in the origins of the original DNA. and evenvthat is undergoing extremely aggressive research studies which have revealed several likely pathways to the original RNA molecule, and then it's subsequent DNA cousin. After all, a single DNA amino acid is NOT THAT COMPLEX:
Such obvious designer molecules have a typical "unnatural origins" signature, and are indeed "awesome" if considered alone, and without their pharma-designer roots. Relatively simple DNA on the other hand, likely arose out of the even less complex RNA molecule, which is now considered the likely original precursor molecule to replicating organic life.
A Key Point for Theists: Life is NOT some state of existence defined by man and his position in some Godly Universe, btw. Rather, life is quite simply a molecule with the ability to replicate and thus maintain it's existence. It need not even improve. It's based on a VERY simple molecule (one that could very easily have arisen out of simple precursors in that vast primordial oceanic soup) that responds to high engery radiation, temperature, invasion by other near-living particles, viruses, mitochondrial organelles that decided to join in and the like. Then it very reliably chemically remembers those changes, and tries them out repeatedly, by the quintrillions of test reproductions, where it can and therefore will "improve".
No Awesome God/Designer is necessary nor apparent. Except to those completely unfamiliar with these known processes. That part, learning about it all, is entirely up to you, Mickiel, though you still may also choose to NOT understand, to NOT arrive at that basic level of biochemical understanding, and to remain at the Awestruck:" plane of mis-understanding. After all, it would mean the end of being "Awestruck" by simple chemistry, right? your choice. You can't explain it and yet I and many others here can. You like Awestruck; I prefer Understanding and Appreciation.
But remember now; given these simple and demonstrable chemistry facts: No Designer is Required!
No Awesome God/Designer is necessary nor apparent. Except to those completely unfamiliar with these known processes. That part, learning about it all, is entirely up to you, Mickiel, though you still may also choose to NOT understand, to NOT arrive at that basic level of biochemical understanding, and to remain at the Awestruck:" plane of mis-understanding. After all, it would mean the end of being "Awestruck" by simple chemistry, right? your choice. You can't explain it and yet I and many others here can. You like Awestruck; I prefer Understanding and Appreciation.
But remember now; given these simple and demonstrable chemistry facts: No Designer is Required!
The design is now able to explain how the designer did it, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot erase the designer. Thats like a child growing up and telling their parent they are no longer needed. Well, let the child become a parent themselves and soon they will no longer be needed.
But humans are destined to meet their designer parent, only then will you ever see the requirement. I see the need now; and science didnot give me that foresight. While your thinking your advanced, really you just don't realize how far behind you really are in knowledge. Your just excited by a different brand of knowledge that ignores your true parent.
"A pure chance occurrence would be where an organism suddenly becomes something entirely different in function and/or appearance and/or habitat. A rat becoming a dandelion, or a frog becoming a bird, overnight. The outstanding advantage with DNA is that it remembers it's past configuration(s) but also undergoes and "enjoys" that constant mutational rate. That rate, it's frequency and it's locations in the genome can and have been both observed and mapped.
And so, it's NEVER starting out at a ""ZERO" starting position. It's already part-ways there. So initially, for example, while it can only partially metabolize some nutrient and not very efficiently, then along comes, after oh let's say a few billion mutations, a minor alteration in it's biochemical ability to better latch onto one of those inert nutrient molecules and then "digest" it.
:
: No Designer is Required!
That pure chance occurance where an organism suddenly becomes something entirely different , is no different than the moment all of this suddenly began its origin; any mutation first has to have an original, and only THEN can we give that a process and a rate of that process - it is there the designer is required; we cannot give original development over to random nothing, or we are saying that " The nothing is the origin of this power process", therefore nothing began something that now has process and rate;which is saying that " Nothing has process and rate"- or that " Nothing has a past." Which is obsene.
So you've never answered how this all knowing DESIGNER got all of his designs so wrong for billions of years.
Thats because he didnot get anything wrong; when something has never been created before, try and explain to yourself ( because I can't explain anything to you), how an original be designed wrong? There has never been anything " Right" before created to compare it to and then cynically label it wrong? There were no " Na'vi right examples" prior too to compare its wrongness to; how then can an original be considered wrong?
No, the crutch of your debate is to find error and magnify it to please your thrist for it to be wrong.
Thats because he didnot get anything wrong; when something has never been created before, try and explain to yourself ( because I can't explain anything to you), how an original be designed wrong? There has never been anything " Right" before created to compare it to and then cynically label it wrong? There were no " Na'vi right examples" prior too to compare its wrongness to; how then can an original be considered wrong?
No, the crutch of your debate is to find error and magnify it to please your thrist for it to be wrong.
It's fairly easy for those of us who can think for ourselves, here let me help. They are all EXTINCT
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This Morning's Detailed Study Plan, prepared especially for Mickiel!
) Some suns a lot larger than ours? Yep. But so what? We live near a moderate sized star, halfways through it's life, with Man just a blip in its system elements, all of it & us destined to future extermination unless, via scientific research and hard work, we learn how to "exit stage right" within the next few million years and get the heck outa here on cue. Or, a stray macro-meteor will do it all next month, BAAAMMMM!!!! ...and no Golden Ship will come a'docking to pick anyone up! 
