Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > > > QUOTE: “'[i]The killifish combines a vertebrate body plan with a characteristically invertebrate solution to survival in unpredictable conditions,” adds Reichard."[/i]
> > > > 
> > > > David’s comment: [i]If water is so brief in its appearance, how did this have time to evolve in the expected Darwin stages of several intermediate steps? Perhaps the fish was designed this way.[/i]
> > > > 
> > > > dhw: A fascinating example of how cell communities can adapt to all kinds of environments. Slightly spoilt by the unnecessary reference to Darwin’s gradualism, which you and I have long since rejected.  If you want to go on flogging dead horses, then [i]what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the killifish 3.8 billion years ago or leapt in to specially design it, as he apparently did with the weaverbird’s nest, because it was essential to the balance of nature so that life could continue until he was able to design the brain of Homo sapiens?[/i]
> > > 
> > >David: I said design was  a distinct possibility
> > 
> > Tony: Oh, the snark is strong with you. From a biblical perspective, each stage of create was followed with "and God saw that it was good"(lit. [i]Functional[/i]). Reading through the order of operations, which match our scientific observations, each stage had to be functionally complete and working, prior to moving on to the next. In other words, the damn weaver birds were working as they needed to work long, long before humans came on the scene. Humans were created, at least according to the account, as care takers. In other words, the weaver birds were not created for us, we were created for them, and all other creatures. 
> > 
> > The Bibles version of a ruler is that of a servant. The King is the servant of their subjects as much as he is a ruler. For once, I would absolutely love to see how data is interpreted without the human-centric arrogance. Everything was not created for us. It was created for as a gift for Jesus, and we were created as caretakers of that gift, and because of that, Jesus was 'especially fond of us. 
> > 
> > The point is, if you are going to make the attempt at looking at the universe through the lens of creation, exploring that possibility, have the decency to give it as much thought and attention as you do other possible explanations, considering the source material as well as the science. Otherwise, you're just giving lip service to it without making any real attempt to understand that perspective. 
> > 
> > Over the years, I have watched as creation was discussed, but all sources of the creation narrative were summarily dismissed without consideration, yet dozens of philosophers of science were read and studied in depth, and their studies given great weight. I personally feel that, regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, if you are going to consider a view, intellectual integrity requires us to consider the ENTIRE view, not just the parts of it we choose.
> 
> Biblically  correct and supports my design theory.