if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.
Started by Squid, September 29, 2008, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: ""Harun Yahya""THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE TO EVOLUTION: SOULThere are many species in the world that resemble one another. For instance, there may be many living beings resembling a horse or a cat and many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not surprise anyone.The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract too much attention. This interest sometimes goes so far as to make some people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the superficial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros beetle and the rhinoceros also share certain superficial resemblances but it would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an evolutionary link between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal, on the grounds of that resemblance.Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to man than to other animals. Actually, if level of intelligence is considered, then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of the honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider web can be said to be closer to man. They are even superior in some aspects.There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a mere outward resemblance. An ape is an animal and is no different from a horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a conscious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and judge. All of these features are the functions of the soul that man possesses. The soul is the most important difference that interposes a huge gap between man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap between man and any other living being. In nature, the only living thing that has a soul is man.GOD CREATES ACCORDING TO HIS WILLWould it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and intelligence.That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""I'm offering 6 gazillion billion dollars to anyone who can prove to me with absolute certainty that I'm not living in a virtual simulation! Anyone? Anyone?"
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.
Quote from: "hackenslash"The idiots who erect the 'no transitional forms' nonsense don't actually understand what a transitional form is. A transitional form is simply any form that shows a progression of complexity of features. It should be noted that it could be the case that not one single fossil in the fossil record is actually ancestral to any living organism. What progresses is features, from the very simple to the complex. This is what we see in the fossil record. Every single fossil in the record could have died without issue, and the record would still constitute evidence of transition.This is symptomatic of digital thinking. The simple fact is that, if every single organism that had ever died on Earth were represented in the fossil record, any temporal conception of species would be entirely meaningless.
Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'm not sure if complexity is quite right, things often become less complex as well through evolution. For example, animals that lose organs like eyes after long periods in an environment where they're not needed or complex toes that evolve into a more simple hoof.
QuoteI guess that's another major misconception a lot of creationists have is that evolution has to make things more complex and not less.
Quote from: "hackenslash"Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'm not sure if complexity is quite right, things often become less complex as well through evolution. For example, animals that lose organs like eyes after long periods in an environment where they're not needed or complex toes that evolve into a more simple hoof. Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.QuoteI guess that's another major misconception a lot of creationists have is that evolution has to make things more complex and not less.Indeed. There is, of course, no requirement for increased complexity, but if you take the biosphere as a whole, that is generally what is reflected, as it shows a trend from simple single-celled organisms, through minor agglomerations of cells, to complex many-celled organisms with advanced function. In the case of individual species, things can certainly become more simplified, not least because one of the overriding principles behind evolution in general is economy. That's precisely why we see the loss of eye function in cave fish, as you quite correctly point out in your example.Incidentally, if you're interested, there is a brilliant article on the PAX6 gene and blind cave fish by the inimitable Calilasseia at Ratskep HERE. Well worth a read, with lots of refs and everything. Easily my favourite poster anywhere on the interwebz.
Quote from: "hackenslash"Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Quote from: "hackenslash"Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.Trend? There are a lot of bacteria that have shunned this complexity fad, maybe next century there will be no forum posters to contend or defend their point.