Calling All Intelligent Designers – Got a Question

April 24, 2007 at 8:41 am | Posted in Atheism, Beliefs, evolution, intelligent design, Religion | 44 Comments

Let’s just pretend for the sake of conversation….that I wake up one morning and, according to the believers, I discover the error of my ways.  Now I accept the theory of creation, or intelligent design, as fact and I now believe there is a god who is the designer of all I survey.

 So now my question is, WHO MADE GOD?

About these ads

44 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. oh silly you.
    everybody knows that it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    angelica

  2. question: who made God?

    answer: MAN

  3. He is infinite. He is outside of time, because He created time.

  4. He is infinite. He is outside of time, because He created time.

    What that mean? This sounds like something you learned in Sunday school and never questioned the meaning of this statement. It certainly doesn’t answer my original question.

  5. Oh dear.
    God was not created.
    He always is.
    -
    Let’s analyze the logic behind it.
    -
    In order for something to be the absolute creator, it has to be outside of the rules it created.
    In order for a board game to be created, someone/thing has to be outside of the rules of the board game in order to make them.
    In order for this computer that I’m usint to be created, someone/thing had to be outside of the rules that binds a computer.
    In order for the world, time, physics, and everything else to be created, someone/thing had to be outside of those rules to create them.

  6. Who made God? Like Sean said, nobody made Him – He’s outside of time. Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m learning to trust it.

    The beauty of putting faith in Jesus, though, is knowing that it doesn’t all have to make sense. It always seems like I’m trying to fit God into my earthly understanding of things. I’ll ask myself “Who made God?” and try and answer that question in a way that makes sense to me. …But it doesn’t. God is not bound by my earthly knowledge any more than He is bound by the earth’s gravity.

    …There comes a point though when you just have to recognize that some people believe in God and can prove He exists, and some people don’t believe in God and can prove He doesn’t exist. …And that the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it’s about who can formulate the most logical argument and who can make the other person look stupid.

  7. Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m learning to trust it.

    The beauty of putting faith in Jesus, though, is knowing that it doesn’t all have to make sense.

    That pretty much hits the nail on the head of how Christianity brainwashes the sheep into accepting the contradictions and inconsistencies of their belief system.

    aA

  8. How does it contradict?
    You say it does, but don’t offer any proof/explanation.

    Prove it!

  9. “aA” has given us a perfect example of how the argument about God turns into a battle of insults, an attempt to make the other person look stupid, rather than an attempt to resolve something.
    -
    Calling someone a brainwashed sheep accomplishes nothing.
    -
    …I actually typed out a response to your comment, but then thought better of it. I know it’s absolutely useless to argue because I know you’ll never accept what I have to say and vice versa. …I believe in God and can prove He exists, you don’t believe in God and can prove he doesn’t exist. And if I don’t retaliate and attempt to defend myself, then there’s less opportunity for you to dissect my response, find fault, and insult my intelligence.
    -
    I’m done with this.

  10. To address cj, who is “done with all this”. I have NEVER said I can prove god doesn’t exist. As far as I know you cannot prove a negative. I have never personally heard any non believer claim they have proof that god doesn’t exist.

    The burden of proof is on the believers. Usually they claim it’s a leap of faith but you are one of the few I’ve heard claim that you have actual “proof” that god exists.

    If you have this proof why have you not gone public with this, it’s fantastic. The christian thing to do, if I’m not mistaken, would be to share this miracle with the world at large. I’m sure it would make a huge media splash, not to mention the notoriety it would rain upon you. I would go so far as to say that if you have the proof you claim to, you might be looked upon as the new messiah.

  11. There will never be a new messiah.
    There has been only one – and only will be one.

    But there is proof out there for God.
    Most people just won’t accept it.

    Example: Creation
    Creation is an incredible piece of evidance for God. I look out my window and marvel at how people can believe it came about by chance. No one ever believes my car came about by chance, so why should they believe all of existance came about by chance?
    *shrugs* But nobody asked me.

  12. Yes, I know I said I was done, but I just couldn’t resist re-visiting the site to see who responded to my comment. :)

    -

    Most of these statistics are from Louie Giglio’s sermon series “Alive” which can be viewed here
    He explains it much better than I, but I’ll try…
    -
    50 billion atoms makes 1 simple cell. I contain 75 trillion of these “simple” cells. 75 trillion! Every 4-5 seconds 50,000 of my cells die and are replaced by 50,000 new cells. My body contains 25 trillion red blood cells. They live 120 days. My body also contains 25 billion white blood cells. They live 12 hours. That means my body is making 50 billion white blood cells every single day. This is incredible to me. These red and white blood cells flow through my circulatory system. There are 75,000 miles of arteries, blood vessels, and capillaries in my body, (enough the circle the earth 3 times!) all forming my circulatory system.
    -
    I will take 10 million breaths this year. My lungs are all folded up inside of me to function properly, but if unfolded, my lungs would cover an area the size of a tennis court.
    -
    All of this is made up of DNA, my genetic code. This DNA is inside of every single cell inside my body. This tiny little strand, in each of my 75 trillion cells, is 6 feet long. So that’s 75 trillion cells x 6 feet of DNA per cell. That’s enough DNA, if you connected it in one continuous strand, to travel to the moon and back 20,000 times. This DNA, this genetic code, decoded by scientists, contains these nucleotide building blocks made up of a combination of adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). These A T G C codes form random sequences whose characters accumulate to 3 billion+ characters (that’s per strand). 3 billion+ characters are in each strand of DNA, and each DNA strand is in every single one of my 75,000,000,000,000 cells.
    Holy crap.
    -
    I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). For me, this is proof. When I say “I know there is a God” instead of “I believe there is a God,” this is a huge part why. These statistics are real! Google them if you doubt! It’s just incredible. And to credit all this to chance or a big bang or anything other than God, for me, is just out of the question.
    -
    I may only be 17 years old, but I know who I am. You can ridicule my logic and insult my reasoning, but you asked for my proof. These statistics just blow my mind. And there’s so much more to it too! These statistics only scrap the surface. Its grandeur is staggering, for me at least.

  13. Well, cj, I do agree with you and Brian that the world and everything in it are pretty darn awesome. In fact, not a day goes by that I don’t marvel at all of this.

    I just don’t get the logic that says because something is complex and wonderful it must have been made by god?

  14. “I just don’t get the logic that says because something is complex and wonderful it must have been made by god?”
    …This is where you and I differ. I look at these facts and say, “Holy crap! How can there not be a God?” while you look at it and say, “Holy crap! This is wonderful.” I suppose it’s all about perspective. These facts don’t make me believe in God, they confirm my belief in God. (So now I say “I know there’s a God”). Life experience has directed me to God, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Then I dig into these facts from this perspective and draw the conclusions that I do.
    -
    I’m not here to make you believe in God. I’m more here just defending myself – attempting to show that I’m not just some incompetent “brainwashed sheep” (as aA suggested), and that my decision wasn’t flippant, but actually based on something…
    -
    But hey, at least we could have a reasonable conversation without too much insulting and mockery. Most of the time, when I’m talking (or typing) with someone about a subject of this gravity, it gets much more intense and savage.

  15. In order for the world, time, physics, and everything else to be created, someone/thing had to be outside of those rules to create them.

    Prove it. You’re begging the question suggesting it to have even been created.

  16. I’ll repeat myself.
    -
    I don’t look at my car and say, “Wow. That thing just had to come about by chance. After all, over billions of years random events should have to make something like that.”
    I look at my car and say, “Wow, those people at Buick are really smart to make something so complex, comfortable, safe, and reliable. I’m glad they did.”
    -
    It’s the same with the world.
    I don’t look at the world and say, “Man, over billions or trillions of years random events must have created this.”
    No. I look at the world and say, “Wow, this is inconcievably intricate – uncounted times more intricate than my car. Someone must have created this.”
    -
    My conclusion: Looking at creation, there must be a creator. The only one who could create such a thing is God.
    -
    I believe that God to be the God of the Bible.

  17. CJ,

    Apologies if you felt I insulted you. I was making a point that required the word “brainwash.” The sheep comment is a term used within Christianity to refer to its followers. I am not the originator of this reference and I don’t think most Christians view that as offensive.

    aA

  18. I was hoping you weren’t serious.

    By labeling everything “creation” you’re assuming what you’re trying to prove.

    Design is subjective to humans. We recognize “design” in contrast to “naturally occurring.” There is evidence that your car was designed. We know how cars are built, and we can visit a factory. In contrast, there is a lot we know to be naturally occurring.

    As humans, we’re known for imposing the order and design we see in automobiles on natural things, like the human eye. Clouds, for instance, look pretty complex. Sometimes they even form recognizable shapes. Early humans could, and probably did, credit a god for our elaborate weather patterns.

    If the slight appearance of design is all it takes to prove we couldn’t have come about naturally, “Who made God?” is a legitimately valid question. A deity capable of creating the universe is surely more complex and intelligent than anything IN the universe, and therefore deserves an even BIGGER explanation.

  19. “Who made God?” is a legitimately valid question.

    We already answered that question.
    -
    There must be something outside of the rules (time, etc) to create the rules.
    Therefore in order for someone/thing/etc to create time, he/she/it/etc must be outside the rules of time. Therefore, he’s infinate. Thus, He hasn’t been created – He always is.
    -
    -
    Fine, I’ll re-word it like the previoius few sentances.
    My point that you did not address still stands.
    -
    My conclusion: Looking at the world, there must be a creator. The only one who could create such a thing is God.

  20. Looking at the world, there must be a creator.

    Prove it. Like I said in my last post, which you’ve managed to ignore, our sense of design is completely subjective because us humans have a tendency to project the order we see in man-made objects on natural things.

    There must be something outside of the rules (time, etc) to create the rules.

    Prove it.

    I swear, I’m not trying to be difficult, but you still haven’t explained why these rules couldn’t have come about naturally. Before you scream “God did it,” you must prove natural science will never find an answer and all existing theories are incapable of explaining the phenomena.

    Thus, He hasn’t been created – He always is.

    If you’ve allowed God to a self-sustaining entity, why not allow the universe? You’ve already broken the rules for your God.

  21. Simen,
    I shall repeat what I said earlier.

    In order for something to be the absolute creator, it has to be outside of the rules it created.
    In order for a board game to be created, someone/thing has to be outside of the rules of the board game in order to make them.
    In order for this computer that I’m usint to be created, someone/thing had to be outside of the rules that binds a computer.
    In order for the world, time, physics, and everything else to be created, someone/thing had to be outside of those rules to create them.

  22. I’ll assume you were addressing me, Stephen.

    In order for something to be the absolute creator, it has to be outside of the rules it created.

    Even if it’s outside “the rules” it still needs an explanation. Since the idea of an intelligent designer isn’t testable, there is no room to make predictions or even observations. What ever happened to your idea of “true science?”

    In order for a board game to be created, someone/thing has to be outside of the rules of the board game in order to make them.

    Yes, but there is no evidence to believe a board game came about naturally… We can see how they were made.

    In order for the world, time, physics, and everything else to be created, someone/thing had to be outside of those rules to create them.

    Why? The complexity? Can you simply not imagine any alternative other than the primitive “God did it?”

    We don’t recognize design because of complexity; but because we can see and understand how they were made. Clouds are complex, but we don’t attribute an intelligent designer. We understand they are part of a natural weather pattern.

    I realize computers have programmers, I realize games have makers. These are all man made things. They’re irrelevant. Since we make stuff, humans have a tendency to project it everywhere.

  23. Augh. Simen. I’m sorry.
    -
    “True Science?” We cannot prove the creation/origin of the earth – be it Creation or Evolution.
    I just ask that we all use ‘true science’ – meaning, stop using science to prove the origins of all existance.
    -
    We can’t see how all existance has been made?
    On the contrary, I believe we can. God said, “Let it be.” And, it was.
    That is what I believe. What you believe is your buisness.
    -
    I do atribute clouds to a designer.
    -

    Can you simply not imagine any alternative other than the primitive “God did it?”

    Hm… You have used at least three fallacies in that statement..
    -Ad hominem (Attack on the person)
    -Red herring (Fallacy if distraction)
    -Hasy Generalization
    (and honestly, probably one or two others)
    -
    But I shall still answer your question.
    I did not come up with that answer. I believe that “God did it” because God said so. He said that He created it in six days (and rested on the seventh).
    I believe Him.
    If you don’t, well, that’s your opinion.
    -
    I do have one quick question for you.
    Why do you care what I believe?
    Why do you invest so much time into changing other people’s beliefs when (based on what you believe) it doesn’t matter? If when we die, we die, and there’s nothing after that, then why do you care? What’s the point of trying to convince us otherwise when there’s no point?

  24. We cannot prove the creation/origin of the earth – be it Creation or Evolution.

    I’m hoping you realize science can’t “prove” anything. To my understanding, the scientific method requires replicable observations and testable predictions. The theory of evolution has been able to deliver both. The scientific method is currently the best means of understanding the world around us. If there were reasonable evidence for a god, it would be found scientifically. This, of course, an entirely separate issue. My original concern was your

    On the contrary, I believe we can. God said, “Let it be.” And, it was.

    Back to your original analogy. We can replicate observations and make predictions about the game designer. He probably exists. We can replicate observations and make predictions about the computer programmer. She probably exists.

    The problem, which I’ve at least stated five times, is that these are all man-made things. There is no evidence for them to be a naturally occurring, and a lot of evidence for them to have been created. This is where my cloud example comes in.

    I do atribute clouds to a designer.

    Then you’re either wrong or completely missing the point of my example.

    Occasionally, when looking at the sky, a cloud will resemble a ship or something recognizable. This apparent order is not a result of intelligent design; we understand weather as a natural phenomenon.

    My point is: order doesn’t necessarily require a grand orderer. People are known for making games and computers, and recognizing this design. They’re also known for applying this idea to natural things, which is silly.

    Why do you care what I believe?

    I’m getting the feeling this is more of a rhetorical question, but to be honest, I don’t care what you believe. Believe a magic leprechaun created the universe in a fortnight for all I care. Just be able to back it up if you think it’s true. I do care about the truth, which in some way or another should affect us both.

  25. Evolution…
    Observations?
    Where?
    I don’t see anything!
    Could you give me a few examples?
    -
    And re-creating Evolution?
    You can’t.
    All of the experiments we create involve an intelligent being (a.k.a. creator) instigating the experiment.
    -
    What’s the dif between so-called “man-made” things, and “God-made” things?
    Oh, wait, you don’t believe in a creator. :-/
    So, you believe in one thing, I believe in another.
    You don’t like my evidance (and haven’t given any yourself).
    So, unless you will consider some of my evidance/reasoning (or give me an example of what you would accept as evidance), then I’m going to stop arguing. There’s no point.
    -
    You don’t care what I believe?
    Then why are you spending so much time to try and convince me otherwise?
    “Just be able to back it up”
    I am. You should too.

  26. (Why? The complexity? Can you simply not imagine any alternative other than the primitive “God did it?”)

    Sorry but logically, there is no other alternative imaginable. It doesn’t take much more than common sense when you think about it. Go down any philosophical road you want, but if you go through the process logically you will find that logic ALWAYS leads you to the fact that there absolutely had to be an Unmoved Mover.
    Who made the Unmoved Mover? No one. The logical philosophical mandate is that the first mover HAD to be unmoved.

    Spontaneous generation was utterly disproved in the 1880s, and you atheist guys still believe in it today.

    As for evolution, it’s absolutely real too. The Bible describes it in the exact same order as Charles Darwin did thousands of years later, albeit it in a much simpler form. God made man from the Earth through a process called evolution. However, people forget that when the Bible was invented, the word “evolution” hadn’t been invented yet, and describing it to a caveman required much simpler terms.

  27. Hm…
    A Theistic Evolutionist…
    Now that’s quite a discussion…
    -
    I shall just say that I’m a six day creationist and leave it at that.
    -
    But, you can’t argue logically infinate regression.
    Meaning, you can’t argue, ‘who made God, and who made that guy, etc.’

  28. I’m outnumbered here.

    Brian,

    Speciation, comparative genetics and anatomy; the observations on which evolution is based, have all been observed. We’ve been down this road before, and so far you “haven’t had time” to read the links and scientific studies I’ve provided.

    I realize these are long webpages, but perhaps you could take the time to look at the actual evidence before asserting there is none?

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_01

    So, you believe in one thing, I believe in another.
    You don’t like my evidance (and haven’t given any yourself).
    So, unless you will consider some of my evidance/reasoning (or give me an example of what you would accept as evidance), then I’m going to stop arguing.

    That has to be one of the worst dodges I’ve heard in a long time. What evidence have I not considered?

    Since this is the entire reason I commented in the first place, let’s go back to your original analogy. You’ve ignored the difference between human and natural design, and justified your projection of the first on the second with “God said so.” This is fine, but you haven’t given any reason to accept the Bible as an ultimate authority for those of us who haven’t accepted your worldview.

    There’s replicable evidence a game designer is required to make the board game.
    There’s replicable evidence a programmer is required to make the computer.
    APPLY MAN MADE DESIGN TO NATURE
    God said he made the universe.

    You don’t care what I believe?
    Then why are you spending so much time to try and convince me otherwise?

    No, and I’m not deluded enough to think I can. I’m just hoping I can make readers think twice before accepting your version of reality.

    Joseph,

    Who made the Unmoved Mover? No one. The logical philosophical mandate is that the first mover HAD to be unmoved.

    Yes, but by throwing the Unmoved Mover into the equation, you’ve allowed something to be uncaused. What then, is the problem with the universe being entirely self-sufficient?

    Spontaneous generation was utterly disproved in the 1880s, and you atheist guys still believe in it today.

  29. Ah! Forgot bottom.

    Not necessarily. I’m still not convinced existence, not to be confused with the current universe, had a beginning.
    I’m curious how you can justify evolution with your holy book.

  30. I’m going to guess my first one was caught in the spam filter, too.

    Too many links, perhaps.

  31. Stephen,
    Your post was awaiting moderation, good thing, if it had been caught as spam it would have been gone. There is so much spam on a daily basis, I just delete all of it, there is just way too much to sift through. Why anyone thinks this is a good venue to promote viagra, cialis, naked grannys jumping rope, she-males riding the ferris wheel, etc. etc. is beyond me?????
    Honjii

  32. APPLY MAN MADE DESIGN TO NATURE
    God said he made the universe.

    I’m sorry, but you lost me.
    Could you please explain?
    -
    My point is, in order for there to be a design/end result, there must be a designer/initiator.
    It’s a simple as that.
    -
    I think you mis-interpreted my “why are you doing this” question.
    If this life on earth is all we have, then why are you wasting your time on us (Christians/etc)? We’re happy with the way we are – and we’re better off the way we are.
    So why should you ruin that since this life is all there is? (supposedly)
    -
    Ok – I read some of that evidance.
    Here’s some of my conclusions:
    -
    Ah… Distribution of time and space…
    What about the trees/bones/etc that hang through multiple layers? And what about the bones that are supposed to be ‘younger,’ but are found buried below ‘older’ bones?
    -
    Evidence by example?
    All that proves is micro-evolution – not macro-evolution. Yes, we can get a boardier collie and german shephard from a wold, but it’s still the same species. We can’t get a cat from a wolf, now can we?
    -
    Ok… so some animals are similar – what does that prove?
    -
    Oh, and can you explain that guy who found the T-Rex bone, had to break it, and found ‘soft-tissue?’ Meaning, there was bone marrow that hadn’t fully fossilized – it had to be under 10,000 years old!
    You don’t read about that in Time now do you?
    Read about it here.

    Dinosaur researchers the world over were stunned by the announcement in March that a 70-million-year-old tyrannosaurus rex fossilized leg bone had yielded very unfossilized soft tissue—apparently blood vessels and blood cells—something long thought impossible considering the assumed age of such fossils.
    -
    The methods that yielded the soft tissue “seem to upend accepted theories of fossilization,” reported the Chicago Tribune March 24. “Conventional wisdom suggests that when animals like dinosaurs died millions of years ago and were covered in silty mud, inert earth minerals gradually seeped into bony tissues and replaced all organic material. The minerals transformed the bone into fossil rock, supposedly destroying any soft tissue.”
    -
    BBC News Online further explained: “Normally when an animal dies, worms and bugs will quickly eat up anything that is soft. Then, as the remaining bone material gets buried deeper and deeper in the mud, it gets heated, crushed and replaced by minerals, turning it to stone.”
    -
    How was this amazing discovery made? For years Mary Higby Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University and Montana State University, had experimented with chemically dissolving the minerals in fossils—long assumed to be 100 percent mineral—to study any residue left behind.
    -
    She recently worked on a three-inch chunk of fossilized femur from a well-preserved tyrannosaurus rex recently uncovered in Montana. When she and her assistant dissolved the stone in the fossil, what they found was “stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.”
    -
    They repeated the experiment 17 times before they were convinced what they were seeing was indeed actual tyrannosaurus rex tissue. They continued the process with other fossils, discovering similar material in bones from two other tyrannosaurs and an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur.
    -
    “They were all preserved a little bit differently than each other, but they all contained very similar material we found in the T. rex,” she reported. As a result, finding such material in dinosaur bones may “not be as rare an event as we thought.”
    -
    For years paleontologists have held that organic materials such as animal remains could not be preserved beyond about 100,000 years. “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think,” says Schweitzer (Agence France-Presse, March 29). That is quite an understatement.

  33. My point is, in order for there to be a design/end result, there must be a designer/initiator.

    And I want you to prove that. Everything about “design” is subjective in the eyes of humans. Since humans design things, we have a tendency to project this design/designer relationship on natural things, of which there is no evidence. We KNOW a baker made the cake because

    1. There is no evidence to suggest cakes are a natural phenomena
    2. There is a lot of evidence suggesting they are “designed”

    In the case of the “world, time, physics, and everything else”, there is no evidence of design, and a fair amount of evidence to believe nature is… natural.

    If this life on earth is all we have, then why are you wasting your time on us (Christians/etc)?

    If the biblical creation myth is true, why do you waste your time debating evolution? In general, when any idea one views as fundamentally false has been widely accepted and receives an undeserved influence on decisions that affect all of us, it’s only natural to speak out.

    If the Bible is the inherent source of all moral and scientific ideas, why do the feeble objections of a godless liberal even faze you? The truth has nothing to hide from honest investigation.

    What about the trees/bones/etc that hang through multiple layers?

    What about them? What scientific studies have been published about the issue? Not knowing enough about the matter, and assuming it’s legitimate, I’ll suggest what should be painfully obvious – an earthquake.

    All that proves is micro-evolution – not macro-evolution.

    They’re really not all that different.

    When a species separate (forest fire, mountain, etc), both groups continue to mutate and adapt to their respective environments until the isolated populations can no longer interbreed. This is called speciation, also known as “macroevolution”, and has also been observed.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    Yes, we can get a boardier collie and german shephard from a wold, but it’s still the same species.

    What exactly don’t you believe about macroevolution?

    We can’t get a cat from a wolf, now can we?

    A cat suddenly giving birth to a wolf would completely disprove a theory that describes gradual change.

    Ok… so some animals are similar – what does that prove?

    An unimaginative Creator and genetic relationships best explained by common ancestry.

    These are all pretty basic objections that have been settled over a hundred years ago. If you don’t mind my asking, Brian, what books have you read about the theory?

    The article you quoted seems to make a lot of conclusions based on a fairly small piece of evidence. I had to check the address bar to make sure it wasn’t Fox News.

    “Normally when an animal dies, worms and bugs will quickly eat up anything that is soft. Then, as the remaining bone material gets buried deeper and deeper in the mud, it gets heated, crushed and replaced by minerals, turning it to stone.”

    So what is more likely: everything we know about fossilization is wrong, or were there just not any worms and bugs around to eat up this one dinosaur?

  34. Brian,
    Based on the statements and questions you are asking it is becoming obvious that are not well informed about and don’t have a good understanding of the evolutionary process. I suspect the materials you are reading on the subject are those recommended by or published by creationists.

  35. In the case of the “world, time, physics, and everything else”, there is no evidence of design, and a fair amount of evidence to believe nature is… natural.

    Not true there is evidence for creation.
    -
    You didn’t anser my question. You asked the same question to me. That’s a logical fallacy – a Red Herring.
    I shall still answer your question. I don’t want you to go to hell. I want you to understand how incredible it is to have a relationship with your Creator.
    I have a purpose.
    You don’t.
    -
    Micro-evolution and macro-evolution aren’t that different?
    So it’s perfectly normal to have a dog and end up with a cat?
    -
    As for your macro evolution… that was micro-evolution.
    More rapid producing weeds and mice…
    That’s micro-evolution.
    Show me macro-evolution. One species to a whole different species.
    -
    Trees and bones through multiple layers.
    Ah.
    Tree trunks have been found sticking through multiple layers of sediment that supposedly took millions of years to form. Meaning, there was a random rotting tree trunk sticking out of the ground waiting for the next million years for the next layer?
    That doesn’t make sense.
    And you ignored my mention of ‘younger’ fossils found beneath ‘older’ fossils.
    -

    Macro-Evolution: (dictionary.com)
    major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

    Meaning: One species to a whole different species.
    -
    In all our dog breeding, have we ever come up with something other than a dog? Or something that partly isn’t a dog?
    no.
    With all the breeding all we have are dogs. Fully and completely dogs. That is the same for the rest of creation. No half dogs half cats… No part mice part frogs… nothing.
    Where are your transitional forms?
    -
    Unimaginative Creator?
    How can you look at the diversity in creation and all the natural wonders we have and call Him unimaginative?
    -
    I have read many books including Darwin’s Origin of Species.
    -

    So what is more likely: everything we know about fossilization is wrong, or were there just not any worms and bugs around to eat up this one dinosaur?

    For billions of years? Or even millions, how is that possible?
    The point is, that T-Rex couldn’t have been over 100,000 years old.
    Completely throwing out the idea dinos evolving and crumbling much of Evolution.
    -
    I still don’t see any evidance for Evolution.
    -
    One more thing.
    It’s common knowledge that the sun is slowly burning away and is getting smaller over time. Scientists have discovered that it is burning at a steady rate.
    It’s also common knowledge that the earth (and all the planets) are slowly drifting away from the sun.
    At that rate, a billion years ago the sun would be so large it would have engulfed the earth at it’s present position.
    But the earth is drifting away from the sun… not moving towards it as it shrinks…
    How is that possible?
    -
    -
    Honjii,
    I have read many books by creationists – yes.
    But I also have read Darwin’s Origin of Species and many articles published by Evolutionists.

  36. Brian,
    I am having a very hard time believing that you read Darwin’s Origin of Species and other articles published by evolutionists, were able to comprehend what you read and yet ask questions like:

    In all our dog breeding, have we ever come up with something other than a dog? Or something that partly isn’t a dog?
    no.
    With all the breeding all we have are dogs. Fully and completely dogs. That is the same for the rest of creation. No half dogs half cats… No part mice part frogs… nothing.
    Where are your transitional forms?

    Having even the most basic understanding of the evolutionary process isn’t even in the same ballpark with the kind of thinking indicated by these questions.

  37. Not true there is evidence for creation.

    Go on…

    You didn’t anser my question.

    First, this question is irrelevant to the veracity of evolution and your fictitious design analogy. Second, if you would have bothered to look past the first sentence, you’d see I did answer your question.

    I don’t want you to go to hell. I want you to understand how incredible it is to have a relationship with your Creator.

    The thought of a loving god who judges thoughts rather than actions with the threat of eternal torture makes me question both his and your own morality.

    I have a purpose.
    You don’t.

    That’s a little arrogant. Seeing how you don’t even know me, how dare you assert my life is purposeless?

    Show me macro-evolution. One species to a whole different species.

    You’re misusing the word species. A species isn’t simply a dog or a cat, but a population of organisms capable of interbreeding. Two animals can look similar and still be separate species. Speciation has been observed, and I’ve already addressed that.

    Nonetheless, we have evidence for macroevolution. As always, the information is out there…
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    So it’s perfectly normal to have a dog and end up with a cat?
    That’s a complete caricature of evolutionary theory. Over time, the isolated species adapts until it can no longer interbreed with the original group. When they can’t interbreed, they’re considered a different species. Mutations continue to occur in both groups and they both go their separate ways on the chain of complexity.

    How many trees and fossils have been misplaced? My original explanation stands. Earthquakes and heavy pressure applied to strata over long periods of time could easily shift strata.

    Meaning: One species to a whole different species.

    Microevolution implies macroevolution. A lot of small changes eventually accumulate into large changes.

    In all our dog breeding, have we ever come up with something other than a dog? Or something that partly isn’t a dog?

    Is a wolf a dog? The modern dog was domesticated around the same time the god of the bible created the universe.

    Where are your transitional forms?

    Every fossil is a transitional form because evolution doesn’t stop. Nonetheless, I understand what you’re getting at. Besides humans (ironically) the horse and bird come to mind.

    There’s an article on wikipedia with a couple of pictures illustrating the hominin species I found interesting.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

    Again, this is all really basic stuff that was settled decades ago.

    How can you look at the diversity in creation and all the natural wonders we have and call Him unimaginative?

    The idea that a creator god would give us a brain and expect us to believe humans and chimpanzees, with nearly identical genomes, are merely products of the same designer.

    The genetic evidence points to a common ancestor and I find the creationist “common designer” dodge simply unimaginative for an omniscient creator.

    I have read many books including Darwin’s Origin of Species.

    Evolution didn’t stop after Darwin… Books by Sagan, Dawkins and your 9th grade biology teacher are just a few ways to catch up.

    For billions of years? Or even millions, how is that possible?

    Try somewhere around 70 million. That you think dinosaurs walked the earth BILLIONS of years ago tells me you know absolutely nothing about the scientific ideas you’re criticizing.

    A quick Google search lead me to the actual article.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/13/MNGVGP7VCQ1.DTL

    Horner, who led the fossil excavation, said the dinosaur must have become fossilized in sandstone rather than in wet mudstone after it died near a stream in what was once a sandy wasteland.

    Those circumstances help explain how the animal’s soft tissues could have been preserved so long.

    “If you think about a giant Tyrannosaurus drumstick rotting in the sand,” Schweitzer said, “the difference between sand and mud is that as tissues begin to liquefy and suppurate, the enzymes of decay and degeneration are drained away in sandstone, whereas in a mudstone it just sits and stews in its own juices.

    Funny how they left that out.

    What I find most ironic, and quite honestly simply hilarious, is how this is being viewed as an evidence FOR evolution.

    The new tools used by Schweitzer and her Harvard colleagues are yielding novel molecular insights into the evolutionary paths that have led from the dinosaurs to their modern descendants — the birds of today.

    They found three amino acid sequences that precisely matched those of modern chickens. One matched a newt sequence, one matched a frog, and two matched collagen from chickens and several other animals, Asari said.
    Schweitzer said she had also conducted antibody tests of the dinosaur and chicken collagen and found a surprising match there, too.

    As for the Harvard work sequencing the ancient protein for the first time, Padian called it “a brilliant technical achievement, and it’s because we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs that it makes sense.”

    I’m constantly amazed at the spin creationists use. You don’t see your article in Time because it’s downright propaganda!

    It’s common knowledge that the sun is slowly burning away and is getting smaller over time.

    Not exactly. The idea of a shrinking sun is based on ONE report from the 1980’s without nearly enough data. Other, more recent measurements show no such thing. So, establish the sun is shrinking.

    As long as we’re on the subject of “star stuff”, what do you think OF the stars? The light from the most distant stars took up to 13 billion light years (a year traveling at the speed of light) to reach our skies. This is either God testing our faith, expecting us to abandon reason and ignore the mountains of evidence opposing his role in the universe, or pretty a pretty good reason not to believe in a young universe.

  38. I do understand that my question is irrelivant to this Creation vs Evolution debate – but I was simply curious at your reasoning for arguing.
    But you still do not unerstand the question, so I shall drop it.
    -
    “There is evidance for Creation.”
    I have given evidance already – such as the Bible (Genesis 1 & 2).
    And a few others.
    Simply Google it.
    http://answersingenesis.org/
    -

    The thought of a loving god who judges thoughts rather than actions with the threat of eternal torture makes me question both his and your own morality.

    I wondered if this would come up.
    Think about it – a judge must enact judgement on a convicted criminal – no matter what the circumstances, relations, etc.
    It’s the same with God. God is the highest authority and He must judge us for everything we do.
    There is only one way to avoid that judgement.
    -

    I have a purpose – you don’t

    Yes, that does seem a little arrogant – I’m sorry.
    However, in the grand scheme of things – you trying to convince me is irrelivant. When I die, I die. It doesn’t matter how I live on earth as long as I enjoy it (from your point of view). So thus, there isn’t any real reason for you trying to convince me otherwise.
    -
    Ahh…. Lucy…
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/18/farewell-lucy
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0825lawrence.asp
    -

    A quick Google search lead me to the actual article.

    That still ignores the fact that that type of ‘soft tissue’ can only be around for under 100,000 years.
    -
    Ok, so light takes a while to get to earth. Big deal.
    Don’t you think that an all powerful creator would/could have had light already in transit to earth so the stars already can be seen on earth?
    -
    -
    But now I shall repeat what I said on the other post:
    “I do not see the point of us arguing.
    I am no expert on Creation vs. Evolution – but I do know enough to believe that Evolution is not true (and that it cannot be ‘proven’ – and nor can Creationism).
    All we’ve been doing is haggling. You don’t like my evidances – and I don’t like yours.
    You don’t believe what I say, and I don’t believe what you say.
    Thus, I am going to be abstaining from future Creation and Evolution debates.
    There’s no point – so I shall spend my time elsewhere.”

  39. LOL Brian, you might be taken more seriously if you would learn proper spelling and grammar. The fact that you write (and probably speak) at about the same level as President Bush only makes all this stupid s**t you write sound even more stupid and insane.

    You’re going to abstain from future debates, hah! That’s hilarious, you have already abstained from any rational thought.

  40. I have given evidance already – such as the Bible (Genesis 1 & 2).

    Ah, but you forgot the part where you tell me why it’s even relevant and why I should care about what your magic book says.

    Unlike the Bible, the evidence for a computer and board game having creators is observable and repeatable. What we know about these manmade creations is an entirely different league than any divinely-invented cosmic origin. Like I’ve been saying all along, you can’t compare the two.

    Think about it – a judge must enact judgement on a convicted criminal – no matter what the circumstances, relations, etc.

    What a terrible analogy.

    In contrast to your god, the judge is judging actions, not convictions. The judge is sending the criminal to prison because he murdered someone, not because he forgot to believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

    According to the Bible, one could live a productive life, contributing to society and acting in others’ best interests and still be doomed to an eternity of torture for the simple crime of not believing.

    That still ignores the fact that that type of ’soft tissue’ can only be around for under 100,000 years.

    That’s not true. The tissue was preserved because the t-rex was fossilized in sandstone, not mud.

    Don’t you think that an all powerful creator would/could have had light already in transit to earth so the stars already can be seen on earth?

    So God is essentially tricking us into using the brains he put in our head?

    All we’ve been doing is haggling. You don’t like my evidances – and I don’t like yours.

    Not only do I not like your so called “evidances”, I’ve been able to expose them for the irrational nonsense (and in one case, pure propaganda) they are. You’re trying to disprove evolution as if it would prove creation. That’s absurd. Here’s a hint: back up your theory. If Creationists ever hope to be taken seriously, they’ll need to come up with better evidence than Genesis 1-2.

  41. I can appreciate all of the arguments here, however I find them all pretty pointless. One side can’t prove that God exists, the other can’t prove that God doesn’t…Stalemate.

    The difference from one side to the other is one side’s (believer) willingness to relinquish his rationality over to blind faith. A lot of that IMO is more or less cultural conditioning, and ignorance of Science.

    I am without a doubt an Atheist and I would just as soon put a shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger as give up the ONE thing that I still have control over..my ability to think for myself.

    Most Atheist I know understand VOLUMES more about (many) religions than most “believers”. However, the religious folks that I know are under the impression that the word THEORY(as in theory of evolution)is just some random idea, or hypothesis.

    In science a THEORY is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

    In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

    There are things that have happened in my life (I have Hep C) that believer friends of mine say is “God’s will”..Fuck that..I’m not sick from God’s will, I’m sick from the Hep C virus.

    Anyway, sorry for being long winded..I’m just bored.

  42. [...] he claims, given the evolutionary timeline. I remember seeing this last year in a prolonged discussion. As it turns out, the bones were fossilized in sandstone, a material where the enzymes of decay and [...]

  43. [...] he claims, given the evolutionary timeline. I remember seeing this last year in a prolonged discussion. As it turns out, the bones were fossilized in sandstone, a material where the enzymes of decay and [...]

  44. [...] he claims, given the evolutionary timeline. I remember seeing this last year in a prolonged discussion. As it turns out, the bones were fossilized in sandstone, a material where the enzymes of decay and [...]


Throw in your two cents

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. | The Pool Theme.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers

%d bloggers like this: