One of the many questions Darwinist cannot answer

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When the Creationists get more proof than "Magic" I'll listen.....till then I'll stick with science.
And no, you don't have proof.

what magic? it was done by scientists from another planet with an agenda. what is so hard to understand about that?

Ah, but how did the alien scientists evolve ..... ?

Its turtles all the way down!


But seriously, when we add a billion billion planets to the equation, life does start to look more and more probable.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Here you go, servant.



boymonkey74 first linked this video.

I watched the entire thing.
These are my takeaway new knowledge bytes:

"Cdesign Proponentsists"
from 2008.

And the Wedge Strategy (including the Wedge Document). Are you familiar with this?

The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

There are three Wedge Projects, referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:

Scientific Research, Writing and Publicity

Publicity and Opinion-making

Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation:

Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.[17]

They are Seven Mountain Dominionists.
Active Theocrats: The New Apostolic Reformation and The Seven Mountain Domionists

Hope that helps you understand.

they have pieces of a puzzle not only do they not have all the pieces but they're not even sure what the whole picture looks like

a reply to: Krazysh0t

maybe someday we can ask them. us being assembled in a clay jar has no bearing on where life in general came from. not saying there is no process or some natural mechanism at work in nature but so far everything I see has a natural niche and us not so much. we're barely out of the starting blocks and we're making advanced civilizations and going out into space. we don't even care about taking care of this planet and we want to terraform and colonize other ones? wtf is up with that as a species. sounds like we're just a chip off the old block



a reply to: AndyMayhew

The genome's potential is unlocked by the spirit.

I don't think that way. you are wrong

a reply to: GetHyped

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
they have pieces of a puzzle not only do they not have all the pieces but they're not even sure what the whole picture looks like

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So? That's true for all science. Do you discount cell theory because it is incomplete as well? What about electrical theory? Gravitational theory?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
they have pieces of a puzzle not only do they not have all the pieces but they're not even sure what the whole picture looks like

And one more for good measure:

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I don't think that way. you are wrong

Pretty much summed up the whole science denier point of view right there. "I'm right and if you disagree you are wrong." Surely you have a better argument than THAT?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
But if the aliens are made of biological material then the same question would come to who created them?

I'd have a problem with that if time was simply linear and there was a simple beginning and end to everything. But that has never been proven by anybody.

a reply to: Barcs

That is the best cartoon I've seen that describes the debate between evolution and creationism. The only thing missing is that the bunny saying to trust the box needs to be saying, "You just have to have faith that the picture is a duck".

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I don't think that way. you are wrong

a reply to: GetHyped

Then why would you ask:

I think one big question they seem to dance around is why do some species never change like horseshoe crabs?

???

so then to say this is how is works and this is how it worked for us are two different things. I'm sure the laws of nature aren't linear and we may think we're the top of the intellectual foodchain, but we're not and we didn't get here because of some slow natural process. why were we mining for gold in southeast Africa 100,000+ years ago? and if not us then who and then that just lends more credibility to the ancient aliens theory. the dots are getting bigger and bigger and easier to connect on the side of THAT theory.


a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol thanks that was funny! I'm saying humans aren't part of some other natural process that most likely is in every nook and cranny of this and any other universe but we were created artificially. there's more evidence than just our odd dna such as our behavior throughout history


a reply to: Barcs

a reply to: bottleslingguy

What does humans allegedly mining gold 10,000 years ago have to do with evolution that takes place over millions of years? Humans have been on the planet much longer than 10,000 years. Your points aren't making sense now.

Also, what does the phrase "the laws of nature aren't linear" even mean? To me that looks like you are using the words in that sentence incorrectly. If you are trying to say that the laws of nature change over time (first you have to prove that statement), second that isn't how a line works. A line is just a mathematical representation of something that changes over time (or some other independent variable) at a set rate. That rate could be constant (0) or it could be steady (X < 0 < X). If it is steady then it is changing at a constant rate. Therefore, that makes your expression erroneous in correct context.

In conclusion, I think you need to go study math and science again. You appear to not know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
so then to say this is how is works and this is how it worked for us are two different things. I'm sure the laws of nature aren't linear and we may think we're the top of the intellectual foodchain, but we're not and we didn't get here because of some slow natural process. why were we mining for gold in southeast Africa 100,000+ years ago? and if not us then who and then that just lends more credibility to the ancient aliens theory. the dots are getting bigger and bigger and easier to connect on the side of THAT theory.

Nothing wrong with believing that, but if aliens really intervened or enslaved us all those years ago, then they did it alongside of evolution, not in complete replacement of it. It doesn't mean evolution is wrong as all life still evolves. If evolution was assisted via genetic manipulation, then I'd see it similar to humans breeding dogs. It's still evolution, just the mutations aren't all random and the selection is artificial. Creating humans from scratch though? Not a chance.

I think you are the one who actually has to go back and reread something: I said 100,000+ years ago not 10,000. big difference and if you can't see the implications of that then you can go back to sleep.


a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Is there any evidence to support the notion that humans were mining gold 100,000 years ago or is it all based on Sumerian myths?

What is it with extraterrestrials and gold, anyway? I thought they would be above the whole magpie thing.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

According to Evolutionary Scientists, not Darwinists, mutations do add new information while selection and genetic drift reduce it or shift it around. However, mutation happens at a much slower rate than selection and drift.

I think your example of the computer code is incorrect as well. The reason you can't shift code around and make new programs is because the code is already pre assembled which means you can't change any information or variables. But that's because it's already been defined as that function and moving it around doesn't change it. However, what if I took that same 3 billions lines of code but you're allowed to switch it all around at the level of each letter or character. You could certainly come up with a new program then and along with a very rare mutation once in a while completely new possibilities would arise.

That's the way I see it but it's just an opinion as I'm not a scientist.

www.youtube.com... a reply to: Barcs