What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: puzzlesphere

How could you research something you couldn’t possibly comprehend?
You are having a hard enough time trying to research evolution...
Perhaps you should ask yourself why does science have laws?
It’s funny science wishes to push aside the need for God while using his methods and constraints, it’s an exercise in futility...
One day when science has matured although still unable to reveal God, will have no choice but to admit his existence...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yes, how could you research something that is incomprehensible? Thus no creationist research... ever.

That's your pipe dream to bear... one day god will be shown... lol... whatever.

I think someday the spaghetti monster will be shown... classic religious impasse.

I'll look for facts in the here and now.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Everything in existence has been created otherwise it wouldn’t exist so it seems science can only study creation...
Best think again...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Great, cool, whatever... make some giant unfounded postulation... lol... what happens at a cosmic scale doesn't change the fact that evolution is one of the mechanisms of the universe, regardless of how the universe came to be.

Got a mechanism for creation?

lol

... plaything... lol

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
evolution is one of the mechanisms of the universe

Then propose a mechanism how a fish could have formed a trachea with an epiglottis and proper neural control via step-by-step mutations without drowning during the intermediate steps.

I'll save you time. It isn't possible. No scientist even has a plausible guess how this could have happened.

a reply to: cooperton

No, not my specific field (or yours obviously), though I have read some science on the matter. Why don't you tell me what the science says, and if you disagree with it add a correction... not just an opinion or a claim that "there is no way evolution could have done it"... lol ... so far I haven't read any science at all on creation ever (be happy to if you can present some), and the science I've read on evolution, while often not complete (the nature of science, always an incremental step to figure out) is plausible... there is nothing for creation to even be plausible about... all you creationists have a different idea of how it happened, no consensus, unless boiling it down to goddidit... oh, and I asked you for a mechanism for creation first.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Seeing as I believe in God I would have to name quantum consciousness as the mechanism or more to the point the mind of God. The intellect of God the same intelligence that is evident in all of creation and yes that even includes the flaws because it’s all part of the design... Without design there would be no science for all things in existence are held in account by that which governs all of creation... For you we will simply say all things in existence...

a reply to: puzzlesphere

There's no scientific proof of God. Half of humanity is atheist. Some people aren't limited by science to build up their convictions. I'm sure at first there wasn't even scientific proof of Zeus being the God of thunder.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Half of humanity is atheist

I dispute that, a quick search says this:

Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion) and even if you double that number it's not 50% of the population.

Clearly many more people on the planet believe in something beyond what just science teaches, some also believe in evolution as well as a higher power as they have been unable to reconcile the two so they believe in both.
A modern Christian should however listen to their leader Jesus himself who would have observed and been a part of the creation.
Mark chapter 10

Jesus replied “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Honestly I don't know how somebody can claim to be a christian and totally ignore that scripture, believing we developed from a single celled organism over 100's of millions of years. If they still do they have a type of interfaith with science and God.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

First lungs are believed to have developed before gas bladders in fish. This is still seen today in fish such as the lung fish.

Strangely, some fish also use their swim bladders to breathe. These fish live in muddy waters that are low in oxygen, and they have a tube that runs from the swim bladder to the gut, so that when they gulp air from the surface they can push the gas into the swim bladder.

So most likely evolution helped fish in low oxygen content water to survive. The whole argument something is to complex to evolve is stupid. Complexity has nothing to do with it. And we can see evolution does occured have documented proof. We have yet to see a species created from nothing. But if you can show one that spontaneously came in to the world I'm all ears.

originally posted by: dragonridr

First lungs are believed to have developed before gas bladders in fish. This is still seen today in fish such as the lung fish.

Strangely, some fish also use their swim bladders to breathe. These fish live in muddy waters that are low in oxygen, and they have a tube that runs from the swim bladder to the gut, so that when they gulp air from the surface they can push the gas into the swim bladder.

So most likely evolution helped fish in low oxygen content water to survive. The whole argument something is to complex to evolve is stupid. Complexity has nothing to do with it. And we can see evolution does occured have documented proof. We have yet to see a species created from nothing. But if you can show one that spontaneously came in to the world I'm all ears.

Thanks for a relevant and calmly presented response.

But the lungfish could not have come to be by sequential modifications. As I was discussing earlier, all lungs require an epiglottis to prevent drowning. The lungfish, which has an epiglottis, would not have been able to form both lungs and an epiglottis simultaneously. They would have to be simultaneous because one is useless or lethal without the other. Secondly, to make it an effective gas exchange organ, it needs alveoli, which are branch-like projections that allow optimal air exchange.

For the lungfish to have developed these 3 main functions (which have much, much more biological detail that I will not go into for the sake of the lay man) simultaneously is totally outside the realm of what we observe in empirical science.

For these reasons, the lungfish could not have come to be through the theorized incremental evolutionary mechanisms.

a reply to: cooperton

cooperton, here’s your chance - everyone is watching and reading. It’s the perfect opportunity for you right now in front of everyone who argues against you. Show them what you have, everything you’ve got, both barrels blazing - I know you can do it!

What is your empirical evidence for creation?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
evolution is one of the mechanisms of the universe

Then propose a mechanism how a fish could have formed a trachea with an epiglottis and proper neural control via step-by-step mutations without drowning during the intermediate steps.

Seems to me that a really clever god would be able to create a fish that didn't need oxygen at all.

a reply to: cooperton

Come on coop, I know you must be a little nervous, but we’re all here waiting for you. The auditorium is full and silent in anticipation. The floor is clear and open. The mic is on and the footlights are humming.

What is you empirical evidence for creation?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Seems to me that a really clever god would be able to create a fish that didn't need oxygen at all.

An interesting thought. From what I see, this fallen world is the world limited by physical laws. It keeps things in order and specifies everything to a particular allotment. The limitless realm, the pioneering of the endless imagination, called "the kingdom of heaven", involves the moving of mountains and the walking on water. This is where the genuine Christians "Cross" or "Passover" into the land promised by God. This is allotted for those who love God and are ready for the next stage of cosmic development. For this reason Jericho, the first conquered space on the way to the promised land, means "moon"

So many are stuck on the material reductionist Egypt-consciousness evolutionary theory trap... I have delayed my freedom so I may come back and share the liberating truth with others before I accept my birthright. Paul did the same thing:

"I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. But it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith"

a reply to: cooperton

Please don’t let me and everyone else down, we are waiting. Don’t appear like the lying, fraudulent charlatan that everyone thinks you are. It’s a simple request:

What is your empirical evidence for creation?

a reply to: cooperton

You have nothing, do you cooperton? Nothing. You are pathetic.

If your god was real, thankfully for you it’s not, it would disown you.

originally posted by: cooperton
The limitless realm, the pioneering of the endless imagination, called "the kingdom of heaven", involves the moving of mountains and the walking on water. This is where the genuine Christians "Cross" or "Passover" into the land promised by God. This is allotted for those who love God and are ready for the next stage of cosmic development.

Perhaps. But for myself, without putting a religious frame around it, it sounds a lot like a video game. Moving mountains? Walking on water? A piece of cake. Unfortunately, I think that when you attribute something like that to a "god" of some kind, you, yourself, are imposing limitations. You make your god ineffectual and weak, which is actually kind of blasphemous.

The god in your mind is stronger than the god in your mouth.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr

First lungs are believed to have developed before gas bladders in fish. This is still seen today in fish such as the lung fish.

Strangely, some fish also use their swim bladders to breathe. These fish live in muddy waters that are low in oxygen, and they have a tube that runs from the swim bladder to the gut, so that when they gulp air from the surface they can push the gas into the swim bladder.

So most likely evolution helped fish in low oxygen content water to survive. The whole argument something is to complex to evolve is stupid. Complexity has nothing to do with it. And we can see evolution does occured have documented proof. We have yet to see a species created from nothing. But if you can show one that spontaneously came in to the world I'm all ears.

Thanks for a relevant and calmly presented response.

But the lungfish could not have come to be by sequential modifications. As I was discussing earlier, all lungs require an epiglottis to prevent drowning. The lungfish, which has an epiglottis, would not have been able to form both lungs and an epiglottis simultaneously. They would have to be simultaneous because one is useless or lethal without the other. Secondly, to make it an effective gas exchange organ, it needs alveoli, which are branch-like projections that allow optimal air exchange.

For the lungfish to have developed these 3 main functions (which have much, much more biological detail that I will not go into for the sake of the lay man) simultaneously is totally outside the realm of what we observe in empirical science.

For these reasons, the lungfish could not have come to be through the theorized incremental evolutionary mechanisms.

You seriously need to take biology. Your argument makes no sense when dealing with fish.

1st an epiglottis is unnecessary in fish. The closest thing to that is gill rakes. They prevent small pieces of food from exiting the gills. Your making an argument that the lung fish proves you wrong. The Australian lung fish actually uses its gills to breath air. Most gills are to simply to small to exchange oxygen from the air. But the basic principle is the same.

That's why gills and lungs seemed to form about the same time in fossil records. In fact there were several fish that had only lungs as I mentioned earlier these seem to predate swim bladders so Darwin was wrong on his guess. He assumed swim bladders became lungs. He didn't realize that it appears lungs formed from the tissue sacs that surround gills. Think of it this way gills are on the outside lungs are internal. But the difference between the 2 is not really that great.

a reply to: dragonridr

He claims to have a double degree. Chemsitry (like me) and Neuroscience. I doubt both, based on the mistakes of the posts made. To get the Neurosci degree, you would have taken more than basic biology, yet here we have a poster who makes the mistakes of someone uneducated.