Intelligent Design Argument Fails Again

This printed circuit board is not a printed circuit board, it's the retina.
The big question is who wired it up?

 

There is no evidence it has ever changed. So, since I just proved to you the earth and universe is billions of years older than 6,000, are you going to admit young earth creationism is nonsense?

 

You probably started doing it as a child, in 3rd grade or so.

Isn't religious indoctrination great?

 

Absurd! A bear can only reproduce with another bear. It requires a male and female bear. While the polar bear can mate with the grizzly, they still create a bear. Same with any animal. Get over it!

 

Such a sci-fi fantasy you live in. They really did you good. Life had to be created at the same time. It doesn't take a genius to know this.

 

First of all, the earth is not billions of years old. They really have done a number on you people. Molecules, cells or living organisms must have turned into a bear according to you. They also must have turned into a male and female bear at the same time, otherwise the bear would have died off. Your saying that this happened with all animals on earth, creating both male and female of every animal from the start.

Romans 1:20King James Version (KJV)
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

I don't accept anything from man. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Yeah ok, cells turned into every animal, and both male and female at that, from the start, RIGHT!!! Your very gullible! If there is a person of high counsel rewarding others for their education, perhaps we should consider checking the validity of those in high counsel. As opposed to simply taking their word for it.

Your world is vastly different than what you have been lead to believe. Education for the young, should require giving them the tools and knowledge of how to use them, and letting them go out and figure things out themselves. Education should not be simply just memorizing what it is they want us to know. But again, figuring it out ourselves.

In a time of such vastly different agendas, manipulating the people in a desired direction, has increasingly been infiltrating all sorts of areas. Hidden under political correctness, and guided by spiritual wickedness in high places. The world is rapidly undergoing an indoctrination of the worlds elite. Holding, controlling, and manipulating the currency in a way that keeps them wealthy, and most of the world struggling. They have not only acquired the power to rule, but deceived the people that this is the way it has to be (education). We can't even think of life outside our current paradigm. Killing millions through their proxy wars, and with the society they have created, most do not care. They would rather keep up with the Kardashians.

 

Is asexual reproduction done with animals? Does it require man? As for parthogenesis, I would simply ask the same? Can either of these turn into a bear? And for that matter, it would require a male and female bear at the same time. You know, so they can reproduce.

 

Long story short - science doesn't have a clue about creation. They have theories that require faith to be believed. You really can't say how it didn't happen unless you can prove how it (life) did happen. You think it was an accident, I don't.

 

Sounds like an "Age of Aquarius" accident.

 

Evidence shows that all life forms that reproduce sexually came from one type of single celled organism.

So, there wasn't any problem with forming a male and female bear at the same time - bears evolved from earlier species that already had sexual reproduction figured out.


What Paul is talking about is the revelation of the nature of GOD, not of things of earth.

You can NOT simply take a PIECE of ONE VERSE and then claim some sort of nonsense based on that. Paul wrote whole sentences. Paul was communicating whole ideas.

But, YOU are twisting the Bible for your own earthly purposes.

If that isn't a sin, it certainly should be.

 

Do you understand what changes in the fundamental constants like decay rates would do to other aspects of physics and what kind of evidence that would leave behind?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe God individually "wires up" every retina?

 

Romans 1:20King James Version (KJV)
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Life! How did happen? The heavens, sun, moon, and stars. The dominion over earth and everything therein. One could say on earth, man has Godly powers. Absolute evidence of God. Upon our individual day of judgment,
this leaves us, WITHOUT EXCUSE!

 

Complex animals reproduce only sexually. There may be very simple life forms (having very few cells) that are considered to be animals, yet reproduce by other means. I'm not sure.

Your "turn into" thing is really the wrong way to look at evolution. Bears and humans have a common ancestor. That population became separated in some way (food source, isolated location, whatever) and the separated populations gradually evolved in different directions. In the same way, apes did not turn into humans. However, there was a common ancestor population that separated at some point with the sub populations evolving in different directions.

Any individual born too differently to reproduce sexually with other members of the species is going to be a dead end in terms of evolution.

 

Seems creationists and Islamists have something in common. Wholly erroneous nonsensical interpretations of medieval religious dogma.

 

But, you are claiming that some of what we see is evidence of god, but other stuff we see is NOT evidence of god.

For example, we see life forms evolving around us, evolution happening in labs, etc., and you say that is proper evidence of god.

Then, we see the additional evidence concerning evolution over longer periods of time, and you say that is NOT god.

Why?

Recently, physicists affirmed the existence of a Higgs particle that is related to gravity. Is THAT god or is that NOT god?

And, why?

I just don't see that you have a rational approach to deciding what is god and what is not god in such a strong way that when we look at nature we must reject what we see.

 

They are both religions and they are both founded on the Bible. So, they share the creation story in Genesis, Noah, Jesus, etc.

So, it shouldn't be too surprising that both religions share some problems.

 

Time and distance are strongly related.

Do you believe God makes photons in flight, ordered in such a way as to trick us into thinking there are distant galaxies?

 

Considering "you people" is pretty much all the scientists on the planet, you should perhaps consider the possibility that you are the one who has it wrong.

That the earth is 6000 years old is abject nonsense. I happen to be a scientist and understand the science involved in various dating methods. Not that one needs to be a scientist to understand such things but it helps.

The problem is that you have made no serious effort to understand the science. You take things on "blind" faith in one interpretation of a story written thousands of years ago by a human living today.

 

There is no dating methods of any sort of consistent accuracy. Wake up!

Sorry, man did not come from apes. Man did not come from cells. Man came from dirt, and to the dirt he'll go. Did you know there is a difference between the words "science" and "facts"? Every so called "scientist" knows this.

If a group of people is looking to take over the world, with a new world order. It is a requirement that they infiltrate all educational programs, and put forth an agenda that stimulates their desired direction among the people. For this takes time, but they have started many decades ago. Thus to get a degree, you must adhere to them, specifically memorizing but not learning their already acquired, so called "knowledge". Worded and taught in such a way, it adheres to the very same methods Nostradamus used. Put it in words in such a way, it seems real, and yet can also seem fake. For those who claim it's fake, they simply label them as conspiracy theorists, or nutcases. When in reality, people not taking things as they seem, and try to bring truth to light, is people we need more of. Having said that, I do realize that there are areas of science that are facts, for even with lies is always a little truth. Meaning the table of elements, alchemy, things that can be observed and demonstrated repeatedly. The creation of earth or life, cannot. It's merely a belief or a religion to follow their indoctrination of astrology.

To claim they know how the earth was created, when the earth was created, and why the earth was created, is absolute ludacris and for that matter, religious.

Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

According to the truth, there was waters while earth was still without form and void.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to the truth, there was light without the sun.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

According to the truth, the firmament was created before earth.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

According to the truth, God calls the dry land earth. It is only man who calls both land and water "earth".

I will spare you some and skip to 14

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

The firmament is the sky or heaven. KJV Dictionary Definition: firmament

firmament
FIRMAMENT, n. ferm'ament. L. firmamentum, from firmus, firmo.
The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Gen. 1:6.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament.
Ibum. 1:14.
firmamental
FIRMAMENT'AL, a. Pertaining to the firmament; celestial; being of the upper regions.

Job 37:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

The Bible also says the firmament is strong and as a molten looking glass. And in this, the sun, moon, and stars were placed. Today's scientists and those of high counsel know this, (Admiral Richard E. Byrd and Wernher von Braun have found the firmament) and they keep it from you, to get you and everybody exactly the way you are, when it comes to how you feel about God. These are the spirits we wrestle against. And man is losing.

 

Can you yourself prove the validity of the Higgs particle, or what started out as, "the God particle"? Are they telling us what they want for a certain agenda?

 

1) quit quoting the Bible to me. I know the book far better than you do both from an academic and historical perspective and you have no clue. Even the version of the Bible you quote from speaks to your ignorance on the topic (KJV is a horrible interpretation)

2) This is painfully clueless. You do not know anything about dating methods and how they are applied so how would you know ?

The mere fact that you lump all dating methods into one basked speaks to the depth of your ignorance. Further, you have provided zero support for your claim making it fallacious.

More naked claims and demonization based on ignorance.

 

No. Higgs is not the God particle.
In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic; the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs, who regard it as sensationalistic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

The "god particle" thing was pure nonsense. It has nothing to do with god and no scientist using that term would suggest otherwise. It's more that verifying the theory that it existed was a "holy grail" for physicists.

The idea that these physicists are lying to us is preposterous. There are numerous physicists watching this stuff incredibly closely. You are proposing another conspiracy theory. In fact, it seems like each of your posts is a nod to some conspiracy theory.

And, why are you thinking that? I just don't see an adequate justification for thinking that science is out to fool you. As the last couple popes have said, science and religion are simply different realms. Any suggestion that one disproves the other makes no sense.

 

You misinterpreted my post. I know the source of the "god particle" name.

What I meant was to question whether the other poster thought the Higgs particle is consistent with his idea of god, or whether, like evolution, he somehow thought there was a conflict - that one must believe that the science surrounding the Higgs experiments is a lie.

More generally, when I look into a microscope or a telescope, what rule does he want me to use in deciding whether what I see is a lie or is the truth.

I don't understand how he differentiates.