Creatiolution. This could be the answer. (page 2)

Spectrum

Funky,

"If not, fine but don't expect to take part in serious debates on the subject."

Your a hard man!

Thanks for that reponse. You given me a lot to think about. I'm not sure if I agree with everything you said. You talk like, this is actually what happened. That bothers me so I have to look into it deeper.
Eg. your chinese lottery analogy, hmmm, is this an evolutionist's trick to get around the heavy probabilities that way down on the validity of their theory. I need to talk to a statistician about that.

qcmbr,
"Why I feel thats an incorrect assumption although it sounds so damning: Evolution defines the laws that govern biological adaptation - to apply it to God presupposes that He haas a physical body - an idea only believed in by a few religions. A non-material God wouldn't be explained by a purely materialistic theory.
"
Excellent point.

Shinning One,
"The same evidence came be used for creationism in many cases."
I believe so and that's what I trying to show here.

kid-A

Shinning One,

"The same evidence came be used for creationism in many cases."

I believe so and that's what I trying to show here.

Wow, really? I would love to hear it. Does that include the fossil evidence for bipedal hominids with transitional characteristics from lower to higher primates? Does that include the evidence for Australopithecines, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Robustus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon? Does that include the fact that we share 98.9% of our genetic make-up with chimpanzees? I guess its all just a coincidence or some elaborate hoax planted in the earth by god to "test" the faithful?

Spectrum

Kid,
If you read my first post you won't be so cocky.

Qcmbr

Kid-A - why is shared DNA not an example of intelligent reuse? I spend all day programming with a the dream of re-usable code.

Repeated dna code is actually a very, very strong argument for intelligent design if you wish to interpret the facts as such.

kid-A

To take it futher I need to read books on evolution - don't know if a can be bothered.

These are your words pal. You make claims that the same evidence that evolutionary biologists use to support evolution can be used to support creationism. Yet, you dont know if you can "be bothered" to actually study the scientific basis of evolution? Not sure if that makes me the "cocky" one.

Spectrum

"Repeated dna code is actually a very, very strong argument for intelligent design if you wish to interpret the facts as such."

Exactly, As are C++ template classes exactly the same code executed the only difference being types.

kid-A

Repeated dna code is actually a very, very strong argument for intelligent design if you wish to interpret the facts as such.

Q, yes in terms of computer programming I would agree. But DNA is not a code in the same sense. It is merely a template for the production of proteins. The message occurs at a much later stage of macro-assemblage. This still does not speak to the fundamental question, why does genetic similarity increase exponentially between organisms with more similar phenotypes? If the principle of repeated dna code represented some form of intelligent design, is it merely a coincidence that we share stronger genetic similarities with animals closer to us on the evolutionary plane than others? Why dont we share 98.9% similarity with dogs? cats? birds? Why is it only our fellow primates? Who not only resemble humans anatomically, but also behaviourally and socially? All coincidence?

Qcmbr

KId-A - wouldn't it be stupid of me to say that it was all coincidence? Isn't that the opposite of design?

Ah - I'm only playin with you. I just think an awful lot of the theological standpoint you end up with regarding evolution is merely based upon an already decided worldview. The facts don't actually say anything about who, what or why. They are just facts. Humans search for meanings and patterns that reflect what they already decided happened.

Spectrum

"Yet, you dont know if you can "be bothered" to actually study the scientific basis of evolution? Not sure if that makes me the "cocky" one."

Can't be bothered hence I keep an open mind.

"You make claims that the same evidence that evolutionary biologists use to support evolution can be used to support creationism. "
Yes, but not biblical creationism but what i described in my first post.

reaper

And I was also beginning to believe in the Millions of years stuff as well. But since listening to Ken Ham, I now believe that we were created by an intelligent designer and death only came about since the fall. Try looking at the other possiblitiy from Ken Ham and you will be surprised, thats if you have an open mind.

He can answer all the grabage about Neandrathal Man and all the other Humans that have been found. Try reading his site.

The trouble with being raised a JW, we were taught death and more death. We were taught lies and fabrications about creation.

In November we stayed in a big Stately Home, which is now a Hotel, and we stayed in room 326.

This week we went to the same Hotel and was given room 326, and we never asked for the same room. There are over 900 rooms in that place.

Then on Wednesday we travelled over a 100 miles to another old ancient house that King Henry the 8th stayed in, and what room were we given?

Number 326. That Hotel has over 800 rooms.

Coincidence? I don't think so. God lets us know things if we LISTEN to him. We will be looking out for the 3rd of Februray 06 or 26th March 06.

The mathmatical odds for the same room number is astronomical.

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

Share this