The "simple cell" is more complex than mankinds most complex factories (Holy Spirit, Adam and Eve)
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.
If all components aren't there, we don't have an operational machine. You put three tires on your chevy truck, it doesn't go 3/4 less better. It doesn't work until all four tires are working.
It doesn't work as what? Without tires it could function quite nicely as a "living" shelter/habitat for all sort of critters (ever heard of coral?). It could also work quite nicely as an electrical generator. Put belts where the rear tires were and you can power the saw in a lumber mill or the grindstone in a grainery...
It doesn't work as what? Without tires it could function quite nicely as a "living" shelter/habitat for all sort of critters (ever heard of coral?). It could also work quite nicely as an electrical generator. Put belts where the rear tires were and you can power the saw in a lumber mill or the grindstone in a grainery...
Then... note our tailbones, no longer needed, and atrophied, but still showing as "vestigial". (Look it up!) OK, OK, I'll do it for you! Or various other things we carry about.
By the way, for our more interested, honest and naturally curious readers, this particular site provides a whole slew of very interesting sectioons on the facts of Evolution as regards "vestigial structures", those pesky remnants of previous owners that pretty much prove, on their own, that we and all our plant and animal cousins did, yuppers, EVOLVE from species with different needs at the time. It's called the efficient culling and/or development of necessary attributes, all without any Godly interference.
Obviously, else He's guilty of making a LOT of mistakes in His so-called perfect designs!!
As in: houseflies have "vestigial" wings ("halteres, as they've been labelled. Why did your God put unnecessary "vestigial"structures, like these fly wings and our tailbones and our kidney outlet position, into his PERFECT DESIGN, huh? Bad God! Lazy workmanship! Or.. not his work at all? ).
Well, truth be known, [and it is...] it allowed those flies a distinct Evolutionary advantage, since they could fly more acrobatically and far faster [less wing inertia: look it up..]without the usual insectoid array of four wings. So they could catch more prey or avoid being hit by tail swishes or caught by a hovering or reverse-flight highly evolved and capable dragonfly, and the like. Sort of "Evolve" or get consumed; get it?
It' logically sort of like going from this (yeah, those extra wings gave good lift.. but unfortunately.. slowed the craft waaayyy down Uhmmmmm..)..
Make sense to you, lee? One can only hope.... It also made sense to aircraft designers, and it also did to the relentless natural Evolutionary processes of genetics/phenome mutation and then the obvious and observed subsequent trial and error niche-fit testing that goes on literally every micro-second of each and every hour life exists on this planet.
(Now comes that ultra-tired tag-line.. "Yeah, but planes also require a designer!" Try it! It'll give me a real good reason to go on an on and on and on about why that is such an irrelevant , predictable and stupid troll-a-rote-a-chant argument.
Or as one of my heros, Harry, said so very eloquently...
And this litte piece of hyper-tech publication I really don't expect you to follow, other than to honestly recognize that it shows, very clearly via DNA lineage/genome tracking, the progression, over generations, the loss of wing size, & it's conversion into those danged pesky halteres (the proper entomological (look it up...) name for those now-reduced vestigial wings.).
See the inarguable DNA evidence showing the ever-reducing frequency of the allele (look it up... governing the generation of wing length, and thus the progression over time of "vestigial" haltere formation in the more modern Dipteran families? See it? (even though I do understand and can accept that you don't have even the faintest glimmer of technical understandings of these processes...) You'll just have to believe its all true, just like you "believe" your HD TV will turn on tonight.
After all, its just simple science through and through, I'm sad to have to tell you, lee... But you must admit that you do learn a lot about science and it's terminologies by reading this sort of stuff, huh? And so... you're a far better person for it, yes?
And how do you know that "God" didn't do just that...
No one knows...but I believe it was "God" who brought it all into existance and that it all did just exist all on its own for eternity or from eternity.
One can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. In fact, many Christians believe in evolution.
Denial of evolution is not a central tenant of Christianity.
And the bible is nothing if not open to interpretation.
For sure, I agree. A person can believe God created everything and created it to evolve. People who call themselves Christain do not have to believe in the literal translation of Adam and Eve.
Sorry: I should have been directing my response to this preposterous post by lee. My bad. Apologies to whippersnapper! I'll go back and correct it toute suite! (I still have Edit time on the lcock I think..)
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee9786
If all components aren't there, we don't have an operational machine. You put three tires on your chevy truck, it doesn't go 3/4 less better. It doesn't work until all four tires are working.
This evolving is not SCIENCE. It is Science fiction. It is Religion that requires greater FAITH that a Creator designed it for this function. It is the only rationale conclusion.
And we come to this conclusion by using what we observe... Science.
No one would conclude a car came into being without an engineer. It is a rationale conclusion.
so.. now then, you can go back and read my corrected post above, lee. And get it all straight!
For sure, I agree. A person can believe God created everything and created it to evolve. People who call themselves Christain do not have to believe in the literal translation of Adam and Eve.
But the problem with creation mixed with evolution is simply the fact that evolution is irrefutable whereas creation has no, ZERO evidence.
All that theists have done by accepting the fact of evolution and then claiming god did it this way is piggy backing on scientific discovery aka theistic evolution. It is not even a valid science it is a pseudo science and an last ditch attempt to keep theism and belief in a god relevant. This is the essence of the RCC accepting evolution.
Sorry but the two do not mix (creation and evolution)
One can still be religious and believe in evolution as evolution is not hell bent on disproving god. God does not factor into evolution IOW is not necessary as it follows its own destiny influenced by many factors.
The only reason folk still try and mix god into the process of evolution is due to poor education in the sciences and the argument of irreducible complexity.
DNA seems complex therefore godunnit.
Atomic theory seems complex thus godunnit.
And so on.
Both examples have models that are simply that, models. If no man has seen an atom as the model depicts, how the hell do you think we know what DNA looks like? We do not really have the equipment (yet) to see either yet both sciences have been applied in nuclear weapons and energy and DNA in forensics.
The models convey the theory in teaching as we need to associate stuff we learn with a mental image.
No scientist has seen an electron but when you turn on the lights, hey presto, there they are, running through filaments (or gas) to produce both heat and light.
For sure, I agree. A person can believe God created everything and created it to evolve. People who call themselves Christain do not have to believe in the literal translation of Adam and Eve.
Right...but you do have to concede that the OT is incorrect..it's not true...
...and if the OT is not true, why should the NT be true.
Right...but you do have to concede that the OT is incorrect..it's not true...
...and if the OT is not true, why should the NT be true.
They only really need to believe the bible is not perfectly understood to square all the circles.
That's what I did back when I was a fundie.
Accept the literal translation, but if I was finally cornered and couldn't find a way for it to be literally true, accept that the bible was perfect - but I was not. (Maybe if I prayed harder it would all become clear.)
Of course, that only worked for me when I was young.
Right...but you do have to concede that the OT is incorrect..it's not true...
...and if the OT is not true, why should the NT be true.
Not true for what . . . about what? This sort of all or nothing thinking is unbecoming of you, Raf . . . it can only be your attempt to annoy. Why bother?
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.
Those Ugly Facts continue to creep into the Big Picture. Dang Them, huh?
). 
