Faith without any reason vs Faith without any evidence (genesis, seven, spiritual)
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.
A wiki link by someone who is unable to see the design in the appearance of a cell? lol
An ignorant response by someone who does not understand evolution or gravity. Now I understand how the cell would appear to be designed to someone who is ignorant of the actual science, but there is a section on city-data where you can ask science questions, and if you have the ability, learn about such things.
An ignorant response by someone who does not understand evolution or gravity. Now I understand how the cell would appear to be designed to someone who is ignorant of the actual science, but there is a section on city-data where you can ask science questions, and if you have the ability, learn about such things.
So you insist that there is no design in the appearance of a cell?
A wiki link by someone who is unable to see the design in the appearance of a cell? lol
Evolutionary biologists use the term 'design' quite a lot. They mean natural evolved design and accept that it can be very sophisticated, complex and impressive. That does not mean that it had to be Intelligent;ly designed. Indeed as was stated (I believe) there are good reasons to think they were not. The Giraffe neck is a classic example of a 'design' that makes sense if it evolved but no sense if somebody designed it.
well, the particular animal parts are not proof of a poor design. a poor design implies we know it could have been designed better under the present conditions. I mean going from hydrogen to an animal that takes over other animals is very impressive indeed.
i don't see a thing making the universe, but if it did, maybe this is the best it could do.
well, the particular animal parts are not proof of a poor design. a poor design implies we know it could have been designed better under the present conditions. I mean going from hydrogen to an animal that takes over other animals is very impressive indeed.
i don't see a thing making the universe, but if it did, maybe this is the best it could do.
Well, there is a convincing case (I gave two examples) for animal parts indeed proving poor design, or rather no planned design but a design that arose through evolution. It is not good enough to suggest that an Intelligence could not have done it better. We could have done it better ourselves.
I agree that the progression from 'hydrogen' as you say to pet-keeping man is impressive, but a geneal evolutionary explanation makes the need to assert an Intelligent designer really needless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
can you offer a mechanism? on how it assembled it?
They won't do that. It is never necessary for the argument from incredulity to explain How God dunnit, only to say that it mustha -dunnit.
GoCardinals doesn't want to understand. If he did he would be over on the science forum asking questions and getting his backside kicked, where the subject can be discuss, rather than here where it can't. No, for GC it's much more comfortable to keep away from experts that could wipe the floor with him and stay here repeating 'God dunnit and you can't prove otherwise'.
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.
The evidence is very cool!
