jump to last post 1-50 of 60 discussions (312 posts)

Your views about Intelligent Design ?

  1. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    I found ken millers talk on ID a worth to watch. You can watch the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

    what are your views on intelligent design ?

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Creationism with a new label.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

      1. Will Apse profile image90
        Will Apseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What are your views on accepting reality?

        1. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ID reality ?

    3. Davidsonofjesie profile image59
      Davidsonofjesieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The heavens declare the glory of GOD;and the fermament shows His handiwork.The LORD says,Who created the heavens,who is GOD,who formed the earth and made it,who has established it,who did not create it in vain,who formed it to be inhabited;I am the LORD,there is no other.

      1. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Vacuous word salad devoid of content.

        1. AllanWrites profile image60
          AllanWritesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Words that come from and appeal to true authority

          1. tantrum profile image62
            tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Is this a phrase from the Designer's guide book ?
            hmm

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yeah, i hate it when they do that. it's like they think its some kind of crusade or something. People you shall not go to hell if you let a couple of bored people vent their intellectualism on useless chatter about intelligent design.

    4. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, with Natural Selection you have to start with something. Even Darwin admitted it carried flaws.

      Intelligent design certainly outweighs N.S.

      The study of evolution goes back to the 6th century.Though there is natural evolution in plants and everything else. it is through mutation of genes and species creating new species. As far as man evolving from apes the thoughts go back and forth on this. Was it the Baboon, no the Gorilla, no the Chimpanzee. Turns out it is the Chimpanzee who wins for Scientists say they are most LIKE humans..
      There are a few problems here. The blood types which never change is quite different. Most humans have blood type O. 1 in every 3 people.  Chimpanzees have blood type A but never B and only very rarely have type O and Gorillas have blood type B but never A and never O. This seems a little ODD.. If they are A and B why are most humans in every race O? Why not A or B?
      If Chimpanzees evolved to humans why are there Chimpanzees? Why didn't they change?

      And where did the Apes come from... Maybe they evolved from FISH..yes that's it FISH.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Pure garbage. The next time you get information injected directly into your head instead of learning things, I suggest checking the source. lol

        But thanks for the laughs.Deary me.... lol

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What are you arguing about now? Darwin based evolution on natural selection..so what is garbage? that I believe in Intelligent design? That's my choice.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            well in that case, the way you take it is like replace NS with "God did it". So let's apply this to god as well "who did it to him" ?

        2. defenestratethis profile image59
          defenestratethisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          hmm What I dont understand is this: Why do so many have to be rude and often obnoxious? I'm new here, and Im impressed with the writing and intellect  of a lot of you..whatever your stance is on this subject. But when you resort to petty insults or snide remarks....well, its like that old saying : "When you throw dirt, you lose your ground." Sorry..just had to get that off my chest. You may now sling mud at my cretin-like attitude.

      2. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        intelligent design is assumption that there is creator which has no creation point, how come ? care to explain.

      3. Hokey profile image59
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There's no particular reason why the inherently more simple chemical reactions necessary to form self-perpetuating chemical copy reactions could not also have occurred without ID.

        We know the chemicals were all there, we know that conditions on the Earth were more favorable to chemical reactions, and we know that complex sugars are formed in the extrasolar clouds where comets come from.

        Once it gets to this point - after science or logic has repeatedly beaten down every one of ID's other assertions - why should we assume that ID is correct in this area, just because we have less evidence? Especially since we know the exact reason for that dearth of evidence.

        1. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you know that god didn't tell noah to make a giant boat, what reason do you have to support ID? It is nothing more than another man-made concept based on imagination and no evidence to speak of.
          Why accept a modern fairy tale? It's no different than the ancient fairy tales.

          Bible 2.0

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Noah's arc story reminds me of biggest flaw that people believe in that story. how a man like noah can possibly search and save the available animals on this planet ? i mean we have few varieties of some lizards or snake(imagine anaconda captured by noah[?]) which are not found elsewhere in planet, so that way how many species he saved ? or how many god sent for noah's timepass later on ?

            1. tantrum profile image62
              tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              the arc is an archetype

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                well i just noticed one more thing about that story,if species  later on (evolved or redesigned) as per ID then this shows limitation of designer that he's creating imperfect creations,out of their free will.

                people who believe in this ID reasoning are on similar line as that of RAELians.

              2. Hokey profile image59
                Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The first version of Noahs ark. The bible ripped it off.

                http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes … /tab11.htm

                1. tantrum profile image62
                  tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  All the stories of the bible come from earlier pagan or Religious stories. Like Sumerian, Persian, Indian, Egyptcian, etc.

                  1. Hokey profile image59
                    Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    YUP!!!!

                  2. Valerie F profile image61
                    Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Except the arc in the Gilgamesh epic wouldn't have been seaworthy.

                  3. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    agree, these guys have watched star trek but have not heard of campbell.

                2. Pandoras Box profile image82
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Par for the course. Modus Operandi. Standard operating procedure.

                  1. aguasilver profile image86
                    aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually all you are doing is proving that the Flood happened, and that men have attempted to make sense of it ever since.

                    Anyhow, this does not pre-date the flood, it may pre-date when the flood was described by the writers of the bible, but it in no way proves anything that affects what God gave us in scripture.

                    Has it ever occurred to you that Satan also has the capacity to 'inspire' people to write things that may help his quest to misleads the weak will away from God?

            2. wyanjen profile image87
              wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, well..
              hmmm... I guess it's not possible after all...

              wait a minute. I'm thinking.
              ok, I've got my answer:

              Of course Noah's ark is not a true story. It's a metaphor, silly! Praise god anyway!

            3. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              This is a metaphor to teach but of course you wouldn't know that!

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol, of course i don't know that. thankfully i'm not in school/university where religious theories are preached.

                1. wyanjen profile image87
                  wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I said it first anyway tongue

      4. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No comments????????????

        1. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lol, typical ID questions.

          first evolution doesn't carry all species  as it evolves, just cause one of the species evolved and it's earlier branch remained doesn't mean it failed and convert them like your god theory claims. if we are not using appendix then why appendix is still there ? get the point ? or need better explanation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu

        2. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Humans did not evolve from chimps. If you studied evolution at all, you would know that.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            well her problem is with the branch, she thinks that if chimps evolved and some of them remained in branch then evolution fails according to her big_smile

            1. wyanjen profile image87
              wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              okey dokey.
              Well, chimps themselves have evolved, but not into anything else.
              And life originated in the ocean, then I guess we all came from fish lol

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Chimps haven't evolved in millions of years. Prove we came from the ocean. And even if we did where did the spark of life begin?
                Give facts.

                1. skyfire profile image72
                  skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  chimps/humans share common ancestor,so if they are not evolved then what is your point here ? big_smile

                  So tell me did life we see today originated from anything other than single cell ? if you agree that evolution is everywhere as you said in your posts here, you deny that we're from single cell ? which different evolution theory you studied ? "god did it -evolution" ? that one ? 

                  have some read for observed evolution: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No one said evolution fails. Why don't you read where I stated this instead of assuming something. I took biology science, evolution is in everything, even plants.
              I didn't come from an ape, but maybe you did.

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                wink and someone was talking about name calling and all. fair enough.

                coming back to point, what was the intention of your statement when you posted "If Chimpanzees evolved to humans why are there Chimpanzees? Why didn't they change? ". oppose evolution ? err No ?

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No because evolution is true. It still does not mean we came from apes. Where and when did the divergence take place?
                  I wasn't calling  names.,. I said maybe you did. If that's what you think why would you be offended?
                  Posting links is not an answer.
                  What is YOUR argument about blood types? not words of someone else. Otherwise I will have to accuse you of being led blindly the way you say we are.

                  1. skyfire profile image72
                    skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    it is your assumption about branching that all the species in branch should evolve is it hard rule in evolution ? who set standard by the way ? another point you missed in variation that took place among species.

                    i have already posted my view about blood types not someone else's. you can accuse me if you want to. and blindly led ? sure, atleast i'm ready to falsify and revise what i know so bring it on the flaw.

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I know they didn't however it is what science says most likely happened. They have 97% same DNA and 98% same genes as humans. I have studied evolution. And explain the blood types, don't omit facts. Chimps are more like humans than they are like Gorillas according to science. But back to the blood types. Explain..

            My undergraduate is in Biology Science. Evolutionary Biology. Genes mutate and cause disease so I had to study it in order to get my MSN.

            1. Hokey profile image59
              Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Wikipedia huh?   hmm

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                NO if it was I would have said so. I thought atheist believe we came from monkeys? What do you guys believe.

            2. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Biology Science? lol lol lol

              Deary me.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And? Instead of being snide what's your remark?
                Biology Science. evolutionary biology...The study of the mutation of genes

      5. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The flaw in your question is that we didn't evolve from Chimpanzees. We both evolved from similar ape-like creatures millions of years ago.



        Perhaps, that's where we get the term, "Fishwife"

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I know we did not evolve from Chimps however most scientist believe this. and who were the chimp like creatures and where did they come from. Instead of arguing explain.

          1. wyanjen profile image87
            wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Most scientist believe humans evolved from chimps?
            Really? wow.

            Basically you're saying here that you know more than most scientists. But since your claim about what scientists believe is completely wrong, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So there!

          2. 60
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Funny that you would ask the bolded question if you already knew the answer?

            No, scientists don't believe that, either.



            Chimp like? Who said they were "chimp like"?



            I wasn't arguing, I was simply pointing out the flaw in your question. But, it's okay now because you already knew the answer before you asked the question, even though you asked the question anyways. smile

      6. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've never said humans are from chimps. I was created!!!

        ?
        ?
        ?
        wink

      7. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        deb,

        Humans didn't evolve from apes, chimpanzees etc etc. this is a misconception about evolution.

        We just share a common ancestor. That's why the species are different, and that's why we're so similar.

      8. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Intellegent design and creationism is a mentally lazy way of answering  a difficult question by simply saying "God created it".

        1. 0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It is just a lazy way for those who 'follow' - it is more sinister and cynical for those promoting it. The irritating thing for me is the low level movies that all aim toward this media generated idea with no philosophical credibilty; go check out the utter drivel of the several 2012 apocalypse movies that end with second rate actors reposing in medieaval postures bathed in the supposed light of their god.

    5. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes!

    6. Spaghetti Monster profile image60
      Spaghetti Monsterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I designed my Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory very intelligently.

      But somehow I don't think you wanted to know about that.

      RAmen.

      1. Hokey profile image59
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank You FSM!!!!!!   hu kfgi kdpdk s kwiw!!!!!

  2. archturn profile image80
    archturnposted 6 years ago

    <a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Evolution_NOT">On intelligent design</a>

    1. archturn profile image80
      archturnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hubpages.com/hub/Evolution_NOT

    2. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Most of the point in your hub are already covered by talkorigins.org, i wonder how come you put it bluntly without even googling ?

  3. kephrira profile image60
    kephriraposted 6 years ago

    If god made me, is my appendix some kind of practical joke? It does nothing except randomly kill people. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

  4. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    Intelligent Design is a DESPERATE attempt to keep the delusion going.  Why is religion so desperate?  And you still have not produced your god.  Come on produce your god, not Intelligent Design.  Where is the designer?

    1. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Religious logic for you:

      - who created universe ?
      - who created planets, galaxies ?
      - who created garden ?
      - Who created pamela anderson ?
      - who created humans ?

      hence ID.

      tongue

      1. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm wondering, if the answer were in fact, "No one" would that really make a difference to the religious?

        1. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          check the questions, keyword is "who". each question assumes that there exist creator and keeps burden on the person who wants to answer it to answer the question not in depth but by accepting that there is creator.

          religious people have lot of assumption and they shift the burden by asking questions this way. now if you want to disapprove them by giving in depth answer to these question about how universe was formed, they'll neglect it and will prefer short answer. sometimes 1 liner is what those religious minds seek, 3-4 paras of science explanation is too much. and for those who are into science, ID is another way to please their faith.

  5. tantrum profile image62
    tantrumposted 6 years ago

    Which is the design that's not intelligent ?

    Some are better than others, but all design implies intelligence.
    That doesn't mean someone is behind the design.
    Nobody designs a hurricane. Nobody designs a desert. Nature does.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      who designed nature? itself? hmmm.
      no matter how anyone tries to slice/dice it, it all had to come from someone/somethings extreme intellect.
      just look at a single strand of hair. hundreds, maybe thousands of little parts working together to form it and its purpose.

      food for thought...

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        and that extreme intellect comes from ? wink

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Sky!

          only One Source who has stood up to claim it: Y`shua.
          wink

      2. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ...and not being able to think, overwhelmed by anything complex, assign a fairy to it! smile

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          still waitin` for you to prove otherwise, feller.
          all you have so far is a bag of no-no-no's, but still don't know.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Your god, you prove it exists. Try using these criteria wiz kid!

               1. consistent (internally and externally)
               2. parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
               3. useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
               4. empirically testable and falsifiable
               5. based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
               6. correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
               7. progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
               8. tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
            Then come on back with the truth and state it here instead of just asking people to prove the tooth fairy does not exist. lol

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              what's that Eor, your guacamole recipe lol lol
              what a waste of good avocado.
              ps, those are the ingredients of your half-sister(religion) especially #5 & #6.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you! I am more than pleased with your reply. smile
                You got nothin have you? lol lol lol

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  if that iss the synopsis of all your efforts, Eor, I 'feel' sad for you. cuz that load of crap came from some book you happened to read. same as your half-sister. keep trying fella, you'lll catch up some day.

                  enjoy the guac. might wanna buy some chips to go with. i think the JW's have some.
                  lol lol

                  1. Cagsil profile image80
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You keep trying. You've done nothing to prove a GOD exists. So your words are useless and meaningless. You keep dodging the question to bring forth knowledge or proof of this GOD you keep talking about. Yet, you continue to deflect, just like all other religious people do.

                  2. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Unable to deal with or answer to reality you seem to have moved to the kitchen.
                    You go on feeling sad for me, for my part I can't stop laughing!
                    .... with you of course! lol

  6. Hokey profile image59
    Hokeyposted 6 years ago

    There are many debates about 'intelligent design', but they need to be separated into categories including underlying motive and political connection.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well - there aren't actually any debates about intelligent design.

      There are a bunch of religionists throwing the idea out there and being laughed at.

      Until they can prove that the universe was not vomited by a Star Goat after a heavy night of drinking I am not even prepared to discuss it. lol

      1. Hokey profile image59
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Drunken Star Goat!!!!!! Thats GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can believe this one!!!!!!

        1. tantrum profile image62
          tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          and who designed the Goat ?

          1. Hokey profile image59
            Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. wyanjen profile image87
              wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not one of the drunken star goat believers.

              I've splintered into a new faction. I think it just had the flu.

              1. Pandoras Box profile image82
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Heretic..

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Your minuscule mind would never be able to comprehend so - just trust me and send me some money ASAP before the goat eats your children..........

            1. tantrum profile image62
              tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I love the part about my minuscule mind ! lol

              How much it's going to cost me ? hmm


              big_smile

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                How much have you got? big_smile

                1. tantrum profile image62
                  tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  4 bank accounts, a boat, 2 castles and a mink coat

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Send me everything except $25 and the mink coat. Using animals for coats goes against our beliefs and is a sin and $25 should be enough for a true believer to live on.

                    Your children are safe now. Good choice. smile

              2. Pandoras Box profile image82
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Your mind, your soul, your spirit, your sanity, your freedom, and 10% -no, make that 20%- of all your future earnings.

                In return you get this warm, fuzzy, comforting, plush goat.

  7. wyanjen profile image87
    wyanjenposted 6 years ago

    ID is the last gasp of religion's battle for validity.
    At least I HOPE it's the last gasp.

    Bible stories are fantasy fiction. Religion still insists god was involved, so "god did it personally" becomes "god made it happen".

    It's completely bogus.
    How much farther will religion retreat before it finally gives up?

  8. Hokey profile image59
    Hokeyposted 6 years ago

    If you were designing a machine that had an oxygen metabolism and needed to take in food, would you plan to use the same passage for both functions? Yeah, that's good design. Would you naturally assume that the organ responsible for hearing would also house the mechanism of balance? If we were "intelligently" designed, why did the designer make our jaws too farking small for all of our teeth? Those "wisdom" teeth certainly don't seem like wise design.

    1. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently the designer had a small budget and limited parts suppliers.

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well one more thing is if we assume designer after every creation then designer himself is also a creation. this goes into "Ad infinitum", so just for the sake religious people assume there is no designer for our designer. (again this whole thing is assumption), that why ID is awesome for deluded people. i mean just think about it, lots of mumbo jumbo is skipped when it comes to religion and for those skeptics and science lovers,ID is heavenly sent.

        1. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Insert "Mysterious ways" and "Amen".

        2. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Is it possible you could argue your point without the name calling??
          Like this one "deluded people"
          Atheist seem to show their tempers with name calling. How grown up..
          Why don't you answer about the blood types.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            chill,i'm playing the game, no offense to players. can we get back to that point ?

    2. Tom Cornett profile image56
      Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's easy...because it's funny!  smile

    3. tantrum profile image62
      tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Flesh, bones and blood isn't a very clever design either !
      We're too mortal for my taste !
      lol

      1. Valerie F profile image61
        Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Some people don't believe mortality was part of the original design.

  9. Hokey profile image59
    Hokeyposted 6 years ago

    Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body. One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints." Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections." The last one said, "Actually it must have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"

    1. Tom Cornett profile image56
      Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    2. tantrum profile image62
      tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who would design a new product launch that needs 18 years of constant care and attention before its finally ready to function on its own?

        God must shop at Ikea.

        1. Pandoras Box profile image82
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good point. And that's just for the female model.

  10. tantrum profile image62
    tantrumposted 6 years ago

    Ikea is intelligent design
    So. You found the answer ! big_smile

    1. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol
      I must have come from the "as is" department.

    2. Mamelody profile image60
      Mamelodyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      :lol next you'll be saying Disney world is an intelligent design lol lol

      1. tantrum profile image62
        tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol
        No way!
        Disneyland was designed by nerds
        lol

  11. 0
    StormRyderposted 6 years ago

    After seeing some of the freaks I encounter on a day to day basis I would say the design may not be that intelligent at all tongue

  12. tantrum profile image62
    tantrumposted 6 years ago

    OK Children ! Behave !
    lol

    1. Hokey profile image59
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I can't behave. Spanking? big_smile

      1. tantrum profile image62
        tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        there ! big_smile

        1. Hokey profile image59
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you! tongue

    2. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tantrum, I hate to say it...
      but I do still miss the scary eye.
      big_smile

      1. tantrum profile image62
        tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        the scary eye is gone. Now it's scary me !

        lol

        1. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I know, and you are much more fun without it.
          I just get nostalgic...

          big_smile

  13. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    hello skyfire, dont know enough about this topic to comment so I will just say hello smile

    1. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hello TIO  smile

  14. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Intelligent spanking going on over here.

  15. Hokey profile image59
    Hokeyposted 6 years ago

    Q: What did a Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
    A: Make me one with everything.

  16. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Why is it people cannot understand we primates had a common ancestor.  Some continue to claim scientist's say we evolved from monkeys or chimps.  The same can be said for marsupials, canines, felines,etc.  It's really not that complicated, or mystical for that matter!

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is OK to lie for religion. God said so. Especially if it confuses the issues and helps to keep people uneducated. Sadly - it is the uneducated perpetuating the myths.

      Even those with a BA (hons incomplete) in Biology Science. wink

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, it depends on the university being attended, such as Pat Robertson's facility.

  17. Hokey profile image59
    Hokeyposted 6 years ago

    I know I am always teasing and messing around. Hey it's fun! People are too serious so I make jokes. People with opinions just bother each other. Why does anyone feel a need to understand why this is all here? It's not to be understood. It's totally beyond us. Any reason you come up with has to have a beginning. Then what came before that, and before that? It's impossible. Arguing over anything is silly especially something that neither side can prove. I love you all. Namaste

    1. defenestratethis profile image59
      defenestratethisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree. Namaste  smile

  18. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    Yes I know about the Neanderthal.

    And we had to come from something with the same genre
    we could not develop from canine etc.

    I think you guys only think you know what evolution is. Maybe you should keep up with all the latest theories.

  19. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Did you not learn this earlier in your studies?

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Learn what? What you think evolution is? No because evolution is not what you think. You do know scientist do more and more studies, make new discoveries and change their minds about things.

      I haven't been incorrect in anything I've said. I am asking how you guys see it.

      I am very much aware what evolution is.

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Can you tell me where about Evolution, scientists changed their minds ?

        And you're incorrect on many lines of reasoning, about that blood type/chimp example as i already pointed out.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          OK now I know you are delusional. I'm a nurse and know blood types. You need to get educated, as I have pointed out.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            big_smile

            This is what happens when someone tries to play with words while defending ID. Let's revise again, humans/chimp share common ancestor. does that mean humans are from chimps ? now try to make sense of your blood type example from this. need help ?

            again question is your sources for scientists changing their mind ?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I wasn't giving blood type (correct info) to support evolution. I was giving it to show we are not from apes. I am 0- so at least I'm not. You?

              Here again:Now please point out where I am wrong. yikes

              There are a few problems here. The blood types which never change is quite different. Most humans have blood type O. 1 in every 3 people.  Chimpanzees have blood type A but never B and only very rarely have type O and Gorillas have blood type B but never A and never O. This seems a little ODD.. If they are A and B why are most humans in every race O? Why not A or B?
              If Chimpanzees evolved to humans why are there Chimpanzees? Why didn't they change?

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                i know that you didn't give that example to support evolution, my point was chimp/humans share common ancestor so if you criticize evolution with that flaw then it is clear that you have no idea about evolution/branching in it and not admitting it.

                oh and i'm o-ve as well.

                now that you know more about blood type, answer my question is it possible (or in your observation) that one family can have different blood groups ? like father and mother having 0+ and 1-2 kids 0-ve ?

              2. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                See the problem ? again go to previous posting and check where i answered you about branching in evolution, where your assumptions are wrong.

                1. Sufidreamer profile image81
                  Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  As skyfire said, no biologist proposes that humans evolved from chimps.

                  Therefore, I am not quite sure what relevance your blood-type idea has. smile

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    For years scientist have said we came from primates. Now they are saying Chimpanzees. Sorry but maybe you need to get updated.

                  2. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Because blood types do not change . Blood types beget blood types. Whoever or whatever we came from has to have one of the 4 types of blood.



                    By Nikhil Swaminathan   
                    The human brain is not a chimp brain. Sure, somewhere between five million and eight million years ago, before the two species diverged, there was no difference. But at this point, despite our bodies weighing only 20 percent more than those of chimps, the human brain weighs 250 percent more and contains 50 percent more neurons. Eight million years notwithstanding, that would seem to be a sign of rapid change.
                    But a team of researchers from the University of Chicago, as well as from institutes in Taiwan and Japan, says not so fast, at least with regards to the speed at which the human mind has evolved since its split with the chimpanzee.
                    "We found that genes expressed in the human brain have in fact slowed down in their evolution, contrary to some earlier reports," states Chung-I Wu, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of a study appearing in the most recent issue of PLoS Biology. "The more complex the brain, it seems, the more difficult it becomes for brain genes to change."

                    By Stephen Dorus, a biologist at England's University of Bath, notes an important aspect not considered in the study: whether there was rapid evolution of brain genes during primate evolution compared to other mammalian species. " The morphological and cognitive advancement in primates has happened in the last 25 million years not simply since the divergence of chimps and humans," he says. "As such, although these genes may be evolutionarily conserved in recent human evolution, they may have undergone significant evolutionary changes in more ancestral primates."

                    By Anthropologist Herman Pontzer The last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps lived about five million years ago, during a time when Earth was becoming dryer, the rainforest was shrinking, and sources of food were becoming fewer and more widely scattered. Scientists have long hypothesized that hominins evolved to bipedalism to save energy as they faced longer and longer treks to find food.


                    Daniel Schmitt, a biological anthropologist at Duke University, says that Pontzer's study is important because it demonstrates how incremental changes in both femur (thighbone) length and pelvis tilt save energy. "He's created a way to continue being a biped once you start," Schmitt says.
                    In contrast to earlier findings that bipedalism may have evolved in treetops, this study says that upright locomotion may have evolved in a four-legged, knuckle-walking ape ancestor.
                    Bipedalism is one of the first specifically hominin qualities that developed after our ancestors and ape ancestors split from one another. "What's cool about bipedalism is that it's first," Pontzer says. Now, he adds, we have a possible reason and mechanism for its evolution.

                    By David Biello  Humans and chimpanzees have in common more than 98 percent of DNA and 99 percent of genes. Yet, in looks and behavior we are very different from them. For more than 30 years--well before either the human or chimpanzee genome had been sequenced--scientists have speculated that this might be due to the way that the common genes express themselves rather than differences in the genes themselves. A new comparison published in Nature seems to prove that theory.

              3. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Wow!

                I am astounded that some one claiming a degree in "Biology Science," (LOL) is unable to understand evolution to this degree.

                Where did you get your (lol) "degree" (lol)?

                Did your Husband give it to you? lol

                Deary me. At least I know to completely discard everything you say now. Thanks for clearing that up.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Science doesn't even know where the divergence took place and you do? RIGHT!!!

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Like I said...... big_smile

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well then hopefully you don't have a degree. I understand evolution. Darwin had a lot of theories however it does not make it so. I have stated earlier that there is evolution even in plants. That there is evolution due to mutation of genes and species creating new species. However it doesn't explain blood types because blood types don't change. You haven't commented on this yet. How come?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not worth commenting on sweetie pie. Let me know when you have gone to a real school with a real degree in - what was it?

                    "Biology Science"? lol

                    That the same as the Ferry to France that does not actually go to France? lol

            2. skyfire profile image72
              skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              -----

  20. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    You guys need to re-educate yourselves on what Scientist think. Your ideas are from 10 years ago. This is 2010.
    With their ability to study genetics so much better they are coming to new conclusions.
    You know good and well I am not saying Scientist think we went from Chimpanzee to Human. You know I am saying they think our ancestors diverged from them.

    Your ideas are very outdated. At least I know why I believe in creationism.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You were taught creationism in college?  What course was this?

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You like to harass people HUH?..wrong person here...G.T.H.A.E.S.B.M.lol

  21. goldenpath profile image80
    goldenpathposted 6 years ago

    A thread of this exact topic was up last week.  It served to be the playground for mudslinging.  It's too bad we cannot seem to accept and tolerate other views.  When we lash out it is a true sign that we feel our own views outweigh those of others.

    As to your question, yes, I believe in intelligent design.  I believe it works in perfect concert with science and I see no conflict in the two.

    Thanks for the opportunity to post!  smile

  22. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    "Intelligent design?" Unintelligent design you mean! smile

  23. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Deborah, my question earlier was this :

    now that you know more about blood type, answer my question is it possible (or in your observation) that one family can have different blood groups ? like father and mother having 0+ and 1-2 kids 0-ve ?

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Now that I've learned more? what from you? Why do you think I needed to know more. I/'ve had a hub on this for a while now.

      Type O both parents have to be type O for their offspring to be.
      If one is A and one is O the child will always be A just as I said on my hub.

      If you would like to learn about blood types..read my hub.

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Did i said you need to learn more in that para ? i said you know more cause you claimed about knowing blood groups in this thread, don't you ? comprehension problem from my posts ? wink


        I'm not pointing to your hubs. I'm pointing to some of the examples we have in society that there is variation in blood type from same branch. now you come from reasoning of "human are from chimps" without any credible sources. so i'm sure you'll have hard time figuring out how there is variation in same branch.

  24. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago

    http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

    Carl Sagan's Baloney test is useful for evaluating information - unless something scores at least 7, I don't use it for an academic paper smile

  25. Susana S profile image91
    Susana Sposted 6 years ago

    Where do all these people get the idea that evolution = metamorphosis? They must have crappy science teachers or maybe just didn't pay attention in class, lol smile

  26. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    Another viewpoint on the possibility of humans evolving from a completely different creature.

    "When writing an article on protein evolution, I suddenly realized that commonly occurring mutations cannot explain evolution. I had been conditioned into thinking that with enough time and large enough populations, evolution would become more likely. But even with large populations and millions of years, there are not enough mutations to drive evolution. Only rare and improbable mutations could possibly explain evolution, but this possibility rests on faith, because such mutations are so rarely seen. Furthermore, it is not valid to extrapolate from the small changes seen in organisms today, to the large changes required by the theory of evolution, because these large changes are fundamentally different in nature. The small changes seen today are either not due to mutations at all, but to selection among alleles, or else are caused by mutations that cannot explain evolution in the large. ...
    So how is one to explain a large scale change, such as fish developing legs and crawling out of the water? ( Or, the lower primates becoming human? ) With two beneficial substitutions per gene, after which evolution reaches a dead end, how are the complex interactions going to develop that will result in the development of legs and lungs? ( Or, large brains, speech/language, communicative eyes, bipedal locomotion? )
    It is an apparent impossibility."

    (from http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/where.html)

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      An article from a computer science department, with no author, no citations and, therefore, no credibility smile

      Follow the trail and it leads to a creation science website.

      Follow the trail further, and the author, David Plaisted, is a computer scientist with a limited grasp of evolution and geology.

      Every time an ID advocate gives me sources, they all lead back to the same place - nothing there that has the smallest chance of causing a paradigm shift in my mind, I am afraid smile

      In addition, your sources do not show that humans involved from chimpanzees, as stated.

      That is something that I would be very interested in reading. smile

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I posted the last paragraph from a website where they appear to believe in Creationism because I believe in both creation and evolution (just not from apes) The paragraphs I gave from different men in Science do allude to chimpanzees. I told you I have to scan my notebook I received on it. Please read the paragraphs below again.


        By Nikhil Swaminathan   
        The human brain is not a chimp brain. Sure, somewhere between five million and eight million years ago, before the two species diverged, there was no difference. But at this point, despite our bodies weighing only 20 percent more than those of chimps, the human brain weighs 250 percent more and contains 50 percent more neurons. Eight million years notwithstanding, that would seem to be a sign of rapid change.
        But a team of researchers from the University of Chicago, as well as from institutes in Taiwan and Japan, says not so fast, at least with regards to the speed at which the human mind has evolved since its split with the chimpanzee.
        "We found that genes expressed in the human brain have in fact slowed down in their evolution, contrary to some earlier reports," states Chung-I Wu, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of a study appearing in the most recent issue of PLoS Biology. "The more complex the brain, it seems, the more difficult it becomes for brain genes to change."

        By Stephen Dorus, a biologist at England's University of Bath, notes an important aspect not considered in the study: whether there was rapid evolution of brain genes during primate evolution compared to other mammalian species. " The morphological and cognitive advancement in primates has happened in the last 25 million years not simply since the divergence of chimps and humans," he says. "As such, although these genes may be evolutionarily conserved in recent human evolution, they may have undergone significant evolutionary changes in more ancestral primates."

        By Anthropologist Herman Pontzer The last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps lived about five million years ago, during a time when Earth was becoming dryer, the rainforest was shrinking, and sources of food were becoming fewer and more widely scattered. Scientists have long hypothesized that hominins evolved to bipedalism to save energy as they faced longer and longer treks to find food.


        Daniel Schmitt, a biological anthropologist at Duke University, says that Pontzer's study is important because it demonstrates how incremental changes in both femur (thighbone) length and pelvis tilt save energy. "He's created a way to continue being a biped once you start," Schmitt says.
        In contrast to earlier findings that bipedalism may have evolved in treetops, this study says that upright locomotion may have evolved in a four-legged, knuckle-walking ape ancestor.
        Bipedalism is one of the first specifically hominin qualities that developed after our ancestors and ape ancestors split from one another. "What's cool about bipedalism is that it's first," Pontzer says. Now, he adds, we have a possible reason and mechanism for its evolution.

        By David Biello  Humans and chimpanzees have in common more than 98 percent of DNA and 99 percent of genes. Yet, in looks and behavior we are very different from them. For more than 30 years--well before either the human or chimpanzee genome had been sequenced--scientists have speculated that this might be due to the way that the common genes express themselves rather than differences in the genes themselves. A new comparison published in Nature seems to prove that theory.

    2. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Next time you go on spree to post random links as credible sources don't forget to check the references date. current link content has update date of Jan. 2, 2002. wink

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Since this did not agree with evolution, it shouldn't matter the date. Don't you have anything better to point out?

        All the other references to EVOLUTION were as of 2009.

        1. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Bravo big_smile

          You are science student ? I doubt that. and just because something is making your point proved it doesn't matter if the stuff is dated  ? big_smile

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do you actually think I care what you think?

            1. skyfire profile image72
              skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You shouldn't. You see i'm not anti-theist, keeping you as believer helps me more wink

  27. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    I haven't been wrong or delusional..
    I am however gone from this thread. I am tired and bored.

    Argue with yourselves.

  28. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    Shorter for easier reading

    Human chimp divergence alluded to. This was with a quick look up on internet.

    divergence
    noun
    1 the divergence of the human and ape lineages separation, dividing, parting, forking, bifurcation.

    By Nikhil Swaminathan   
    The human brain is not a chimp brain. Sure, somewhere between five million and eight million years ago, before the two species diverged, there was no difference.

    By Stephen Dorus, a biologist at England's University of Bath, " The morphological and cognitive advancement in primates has happened in the last 25 million years not simply since the divergence of chimps and humans," he says.

    By Anthropologist Herman Pontzer The last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps lived about five million years ago, during a time when Earth was becoming dryer, the rainforest was shrinking, and sources of food were becoming fewer and more widely scattered. Scientists have long hypothesized that hominins evolved to bipedalism to save energy as they faced longer and longer treks to find food.


    Daniel Schmitt, a biological anthropologist at Duke University, In contrast to earlier findings that bipedalism may have evolved in treetops, this study says that upright locomotion may have evolved in a four-legged, knuckle-walking ape ancestor.
    Bipedalism is one of the first specifically hominin qualities that developed after our ancestors and ape ancestors split from one another. "

    By David Biello  Humans and chimpanzees have in common more than 98 percent of DNA and 99 percent of genes. Yet, in looks and behavior we are very different from them. For more than 30 years--well before either the human or chimpanzee genome had been sequenced--scientists have speculated that this might be due to the way that the common genes express themselves rather than differences in the genes themselves. A new comparison published in Nature seems to prove that theory.

  29. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Now you've done it, Sufi!  She's quit following you.  That will teach you. HAHAHAHA!

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, I was speaking to him not you.
      I wouldn't follow you either. No reason to follow someone who you can't agree with. Unlike you I don't try to punish. He has over 760 followers so he wouldn't even notice.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for not following me, I really appreciate it.  The initials posted are childish enough to make me glad we do not agree.  Again, thanks!

      2. aguasilver profile image86
        aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Deborah...

        I guess BTW means 'by the way'?

        But what on earth does all the rest mean, I really think I am an internet forum savage, 'cos I cannot understand most of these acronyms are!

        Even .acronymfinder.com could not interpret, so what does it mean?

        Hi Sufi BTW (see I know that one) why are you two even discussing this, you will never agree or cause each other to waiver, is it raining in Greece or something!

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          E.S.A.D appears to mean Eat Sh!* And Die - not sure about the CSG, yet smile

          Have a good one, Rebekah smile

    2. defenestratethis profile image59
      defenestratethisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Speaking of Sufi's I love Rumi

  30. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago

    Not sure whether the paragraphs are for or against evolution in primates/humans. They seem to suggest a common ancestor, which is in line with my current knowledge of the subject.

    I am afraid that I never had such a black and white view of the world - the differences are what makes us human.

    I never agree with my partner about anything - life would be dull if everybody agreed with me

    All the best in your future endeavours smile

    1. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      some people enjoy their black and white world where everyone nods their head in agreement...

      nice to see you Sufi, had some nice greek wine last night watching super bowl.

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  31. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago

    Hey Randy - What's new? smile

    How is the archaeology going?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Sufi, going great.  Never know what I'll find.  How's things with you?

  32. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago

    @Randy - Very busy at the moment. A couple of books to polish off and a website due to go live in the next few weeks.

    @Agua - Hey - It is raining heavily here, although spring is not too far off!

    How is Spain treating you?

    I have no idea about the acronym, either. neutral

    Just seeking knowledge and reasoned debate - I disagree with lots of people, but that is what makes life interesting.

    I generally use the beer-test - there are many people that I have arguments with online but, if you can imagine yourself sharing a random conversation over a couple of beers, then everything is good cool

    EDIT: Hi Rebekah - Good to see you, too - Hope that you enjoyed the wine and the game. I notice that Montgomery is quiet today!

  33. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    HA, I don't know how anyone could truly be upset about that win.
    well deserved, well played by saints. 

    enjoy, have to sign off!

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who is upset?
      I'm tired of the subject. I've been here for a couple of hours.

      I don't want everyone to agree with me. I just don't see any reason for two people to follow each other when they are not interested in the same subjects. No big deal for me..so why are you making a big deal? Sufidreamer is fine. I've dealt with some harshness on these forums and he didn't come any where near the others.

      You guys have fun trying to figure out the acronym. It doesn't mean anything any of you have guessed. Just a little Hebrew Acronym

      I don't use vulgar language so the last post by Sufidreamer is way off.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        the post was made in reference to the superbowl game... not you.
        sufi got it.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No that's not what was said..where have you been?

  34. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    You were wrong when you said " humans are from chimps". You were wrong when you didn't posted any credible sources of your claims, instead you posted random quotes without references.(oh and without checking the date as well) You're delusional when you claim something you can't back up. wink




    Yeah sure tongue, Someone needs to study evolution(espcially speciation,branching) before asking others to get updated info i guess wink

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I've never said humans are from chimps. I was created!!!

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        TTFNB. wink

        1. Pandoras Box profile image82
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Can't you just see her clenching her fists and stomping her feet as she shouts that?

  35. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    ...and, still, Intelligent Design advocates have not produced the Designer.  sad

    1. aguasilver profile image86
      aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ... and that means what exactly?

      I mean we who have met with God and walk with His Holy Spirit, have no need to find more proof than that which we live with.

      For those who refuse or fail to be able to receive God into their lives, you seek no proof that He exists, merely seek to try and defame His name and works.

      You also have no proof that there was NOT a Creator who designed life as we know it.

      It matters not one jot whether God created life through an evolutionary process or just spoke it into being.

      He still did the creation and He still does do the creation, taking old lives and replacing them with new ones.

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ok,let's play this way instead of making assumption on creators part with those biblical word salads.

        Do you think everything has creator behind it  ? then who created creator ? If you think creator can't be created then that is your assumption and can you give any test to validate this ? If not, then creation cycle is ad-infinitum. Yes or No.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Of course it matters sweetie pie. People like you claiming to have knowledge where you do not have been holding us back for centuries.

        The onus is on you believers to prove there is a creator. Sadly - that will never happen and your religion will die out soon.

        Not soon enough for some of us, but - hopefully, when it does, we can start developing as a species properly and forget this religious nonsense with the systemic abuse of the poor and uneducated.

        Sorry sweetie - that is how it is. You can see it coming I know. You think it will be Armageddon and baby jesus will come back to save you, but that ain't gonna happen.

        It will not be the death of all things, merely your irrational belief system. The Age of Aquarius is only just beginning to find it's feet, and the old guard - including your bronze age religion   - is hanging one for grim death, but to no avail.

        lol Come Soon Lord Jesus! lol

        Sadly - this does not mean what you think it means, and we are not going to need your crutch soon.

        I have been to that bar as well. big_smile

        1. aguasilver profile image86
          aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry Mark, you don't make the rules, and "The onus is on you believers to prove there is a creator." is just a waste of typing time.

          You and your concepts are the new kid on the block, you PROVE God did not create it all, when you can do that, the discussion is over.

          http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PYR/PP30390~Sweety-The-Chick-Posters.jpg

          John

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You are right. I don't make the rules. LOLOLOLO The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion. But - you choose to ignore this in this one area of your life. This is irrational behavior.

            If I sold you a car seat for your daughter and claimed it was the safest made - you would expect me to prove this assertion - rightfully. The fact that you need to twist this normal "law" around tells me all I need to know about your belief. wink

            Until you can prove your assertions, they are just farting in the wind sweetie pie. Which is why your religion is on the way out.

            If you had not perverted what your so-called prophet said, you would understand this and instead of fighting against the new age would be welcoming it ready for what it has to offer. But - no - you are hanging onto bronze age tribal thinking.

            Mark

            1. aguasilver profile image86
              aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Mark, if you sold me a car seat for my daughter, and told me it was the very best, I would examine it and compare it to the one I already had, and others that may be available, then based upon the knowledge I had or that could be acquired, I could make an informed decision as to whether you were a liar, weak salesman trying to make a buck (or Euro in our case)or a good guy with a decent product that I needed.

              I wasn't aware that you had written any hubs about car seats, are they a good market?

              Then you say "The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion" - well that would be you in this instance, for you are the one questioning ID and my faith and trust in Christ, I am assured that the earth had a creator, I've met Him, in Spirit at least, and eagerly await meeting Him in person.

              So I am sure, you are doubting, you are making the assertions, you provide the evidence that my understanding is incorrect.

              As for your New Age aspirations, good luck to you, I hope you enjoy being part of the New World Order, and I must admit that you are absolutely prime material for their ideas.

              http://www.caterpillar.org.uk/warning/btn76.gif

              Unfortunately you obviously have no real ranking yet, or you would not be posting here openly declaring your boasts, so I would guess you will be used by them, rather than a user.

              Enjoy.... it will make hell a viable and attractive alternative!

              http://labvirus.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/caution-new-world-order-ahead.jpg

              1. aguasilver profile image86
                aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ....and note this Mark, YOU assume that I would actually ask YOU to prove your car seat, when in reality the wise man proves the facts for them-self, they do not rely upon others to prove what they say, especially when they are selling something to you!

                http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8g2H7adbyAY/SSwMD1mxr4I/AAAAAAAAAtw/dyQyIzGet_s/s320/used_car_salesman.jpg

                Why are you trying to sell me this crock?

              2. 0
                wordscribe41posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You're not understanding the logical fallacy you're making here.  It's been covered before:  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/21027

              3. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Dear me. I have cut out all the melodramatic crap that you have been preying for all this time and point out that you are the one making the assertion. I am indeed the one doing the questioning.

                The burden of proof is yours. I am no ignorant goat herder prepared to accept your word when I have made my own investigations - and discovered that you are either mistaken or lying.

                Either way - the result will not change - we both agree your way is on the way out. I choose to think it will present an opportunity to grow - you prefer to tell me I will be damned. But that is just pride f****** with you. F*** pride. smile

                http://www.cinecultist.com/archives/fcstil_0089-3.jpg

        2. Pandoras Box profile image82
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Amen.

        3. defenestratethis profile image59
          defenestratethisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I dont know, I mean Im not religious..but still, whatever the "New World' brings, I hope people will still have the freedom to practice whatever branch of faith they desire. To prohibit releigion would be no better than condemning science, as they did in the past. I wouldnt want to live in a world where either one of these things were censored. Wasnt it also Einstein who said (something like)  "There are two ways to live your life, 1) As if everything is a miracle  2) As if nothing is a miracle."  I guess thats my religion these days...EVERYTHING is a miracle. And I dont care who or what is responsible for how we came to be, I am simply amazed on a daily basis. Whether I thank evolution or a supreme being for all that exists is unimportant. The important thing is to honor life itself. How I choose to do so is my business.

      3. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And this God you speak of, where is He?  How can you give me an answer with no proof?  I wasn't born yesterday.  Please produce the designer, or you could be talking purely from conjecture, which will not suffice.  I want to be sure.

        1. aguasilver profile image86
          aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You want to be sure!

          Ask Him to come into your life, just surrender your authority over your life, stop your rebellion against God and cease for a day to be the lord of your own life.

          You will not dare, your little demons will not allow you to do that, they would be too afraid that you will see the truth.

          Or stay in ignorance, it's your choice!

          1. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Really?!! You want me to surrender my authority over my life to an imaginary entity.  And it is clearly delusional to say that I am rebelling against a being that you have yet to produce.  Do you see how delusional this mode of thinking is?  Please produce this being, FIRST, or don't ask me to do anything as drastic as surrendering my life to it.  Sounds like a scam.

            1. aguasilver profile image86
              aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sound like you are afraid of the result, how can you be scared to submit your authority to something you deny exists?

              Sweet dreams sunshine!

              1. getitrite profile image80
                getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ok!  Do you really think that makes sense?  Stop putting words in my mouth.  Did I say I was afraid of your imaginary improbable being?

                1. aguasilver profile image86
                  aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think it makes perfect sense that you refusal to submit to something that you say does not exist is a sign that you cannot be sure what would happen if you did, with total honesty, say to Christ "I submit my life authority to you and give you total control over my life, I surrender my rebellion against God and give you complete authority to take away from my life all those things which cause me to deny you"

                  What could possibly go wrong?

                  Give it a try if you ever get up the courage.

                  1. 0
                    wordscribe41posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Many of us have, agua...  There's no fear here, not sure where you're getting that.  I'm more in the camp that it's the religionists with the fear.  Fear that it's hard to admit they're simply animals, that when they die there's no afterlife, fear of admitting they really do run the show in their own lives and as Mark said, theyre as significant as a grain of sand on an immense beach.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why don't you try proving Zeus doesn't exist or is less powerful than your god.  Or Odin, Allah, etc.  Prove any of the past hundreds or thousands of gods are any less real than yours.

  36. Dave Mathews profile image60
    Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago

    As any good lawyer will tell you. You never ever ask a question that you do not know the answer to. Therefore to discuss Intelligent Design you must first be willing to admit that it is what it is.
    God is the author and creator of all living or dead. How could anyone believe that we as humans moved from living in the sea to land. What happened to our gills and why can we not sustain ourselves under water now without scuba gear. Which fins developed into legs and feet and which developed into arms and hands?

  37. waynet profile image46
    waynetposted 6 years ago

    Intelligent design must be better than unintelligable designs!

  38. Tom Cornett profile image56
    Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago

    Jane Goodall filmed a monkey fishing ants from a hole with a stick....therefore proving the monkey used a tool....monkey happily eats ants.  smile

    5 million years later....ancestor of monkey...goes to public school...gets married....gets ass deep in debt... files bankruptcy...loses wife....starts drinking....becomes alcoholic...sleeps in park...becomes bum....fishes out McDonald's sack from dumpster with stick...complains about the f***ing ants being on it...sits on curb...happily eats fries.

    Sorry...I just don't see the evolution here?  smile

  39. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    OK this is how it really happened smile

    God created humanity as male and female. He gave them type O blood.
    One night a man got lonely and went to a Monkey Bar. After drinking a little beer he met a very pretty Chimpanzee wearing stilettos. Her name was Kimba. They started dating and had a baby. Because Kimba had type A blood, so did the baby girl.
    But, the man didn't like the Chimp that much because she was too short. He went out for a walk and met a tall beautiful Gorilla named Stephanie. They got together and after dating for a while, she also had his baby.  Since Stephanie was blood type B, so was her baby boy.
    Years later the baby girl and baby boy got married and had children. Their children  had blood type AB.
    Then it became the fashion for humans, gorillas, chimps, and hybrids to date and marry each other. .thus the branching and the four blood types in humanity...I rest my case.

    1. Tom Cornett profile image56
      Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL...hey...I know that bar...my ex-wife got beat up by a midget there!  Last time she tried to sit a beer on someone's head.  smile

    2. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Deborah tired ? I told you not to read too much ID stuff. See, now.

  40. Cagsil profile image80
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    That I would have to say, happens to be one of the most pathetic posts I've seen you put up Aqua. roll

  41. Cagsil profile image80
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hey Aqua, you're already sold on the biggest scam on earth, trying to sell you a car or anything else is moot. smile lol lol

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ...and he still hasn't produced this God he's trying to sell me.  I think he's trying to swindle me!

  42. aguasilver profile image86
    aguasilverposted 6 years ago

    Good to see the gangs all here, hope you all enjoy yourselves, but frankly I cannot be bothered to play with you all tonight, besides, I have a hub to write still in my 30 in 30 quest.

    In a court of law I am presumed innocent until proven guilty huh!

    Not in France, and not in Spain, and not in many other areas of the world where the 'Old World Order' ruled (The Roman Empire).

    I have no need to prove God to myself,or you, as I have stated I live with Him and have many friends who also know He is real.

    Your collective spiritual blindness is something that I cannot cure for you,especially as you enjoy it so much.

    So have fun children and don't stay up too late.

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It seems you have no faith in your delusion.  Sorry you could not swindle me.  Run away now!

    2. 0
      wordscribe41posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I wrote this in another post, so here it is again:
      The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:
      "the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe. The "proof" you seek in order for YOU to believe, you already have known. It is as God stated in Romans, since the beginning you have known God is. it is really the indoctrination of sin which deludes you to Him as of now. It is your lack of faith which demonstrates exactly what God said it would..”

      The absolute, bar non worst and most fallacious argument a believer in God can propose is the “negative proof” argument.  It goes like this.  The non-believer says:  “Prove God exists.”  The believer say:  “Prove he DOESN'T.  Obviously, it is impossible to examine every nook and cranny in the universe, or to examine every subatomic particle to find "God".  I've run across some that will then go on to say:  “Well, then it's true.”  This is called the argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy: 

      Others simple stop and thankfully don't go on to state that:  “Well, then it must be true.”  But, there's the implication (or outright claim) that the burden of proof is NOT on the believers.  As it's impossible (and unnecessary) to prove a negative, the onus of proof lies on the one making the positive statement:  “God exists”. 

      We can, of course make an analogy to science.  The burden of proof is always on the scientist to prove whatever he or she is claiming to exist, actually does in fact exist.  If he or she cannot provide such evidence, then it's widely accepted that the assumption of nonexistence is to be accepted.  It's called the Laplacian principle.  The case for the existence of anything comes from positive proof.  Once that has been done, THEN the burden of proof can be shifted to the one continuing to make the claim for the nonexistence.  Their task is then to show how the evidence is not credible. 

      We operate this way in our courts/legal system.  One is presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty.  This premise is how investigations are created.  Imagine going into a courtroom being charged with a crime you are completely innocent of.  You are then given the task of proving you are NOT guilty.  How unfair would that be!  It's reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction debacle where Rumsfeld attempted to shift the burden of proof. 

      Bertrand Russell makes this case beautifully:  “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”  From Is There a God?

      If you are to provide such proof, make sure it doesn't come from the Bible, as that is the mother of all logical fallacies called circular reasoning.  God exists, I know because the Bible says so.  I know the Bible is correct because it was inspired by God.”  This is circular reasoning, fallacy of redundancy, tautology.  Please don't use:  “You can't see air, but you know it exists!”  Ummm, sorry air can be scientifically probed.  And finally, having faith isn't proof.  It's tantamount to saying:  “Just trust me.”  Faith is not subject to proof.  When I am provided with said proof, as the burden is on the believers, I will THEN shift my belief system. Then we will have a real debate on our hands.

    3. Cagsil profile image80
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      WOW! If that wasn't a show of ineptitude for understanding life, I'm not sure what is? lol lol

  43. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Another assumption. Can we get back to your stuff that you can prove against us even that blindness attack one.

  44. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    I have to go now, but I wish I could have seen this God...or maybe Satan.  Maybe Aqua will have proof when I return.

  45. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    it is obvious: the fear.
    like rabid creatures caught in a cage, snarling, hissing, gnashing teeth and howling for freedom with nowhere to go. so they stay.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago

      Well, I don't know about any revelations. I had never heard of the Cathars until last year when I was invited to meet one of them.

      Most odd - but my argument resonated with them - oddly enough - they seem to feel the same way about the church as I do. I will be publishing some of it here when I have made head or tail of what I have because I need help with translating the documentation I have been given. I do have help but will take a while because I need to earn a living as well. They declined an upfront payment of any size. lol

      1. aguasilver profile image86
        aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have a short piece of info on them from a book called 'The Torch of the Testimony' which traces the 'real' Jesus believers through the history of the 'traditional church', I'll scan it in and send it to you.

        I definitely identified with them when I found out who they were and what they stood for. I have no idea if current Cathars would be in the same mould, if they were I would like to meet one!

        I have a 'tame' Monsignor in my local RCC nest, I'll ask him about it, and I will also ask my Jesuit 'friend'(he's 86)as he is a mine of information.

        Thanks,

        John

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Please do. I am starting my own inquiries and they have provided me a local (120 miles away) translator.

          Odd to hear you say what you just said because their beliefs seem radically different to yours and their operation - what little I have seen is more like a military operation. But I am learning why that may be.

          Their beliefs are more in line with mine as far as I can tell so far. They do not even believe that Jesus was fully on this earth and absolutely dismiss the idea that he died. In fact - they dismiss all church dogma. But they have some pretty weird ideas that clash with mine as well.

          Procreation is a sin.

          I am learning as I go. 

          I am also fairly sure that your tame RC priest knows more of them than I do at the moment.

          1. WriteAngled profile image92
            WriteAngledposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My understanding is that the Cathars, at least the Cathars of the middle ages, held to a dualistic concept of God, namely that there was an evil God and a good God. The evil God was the Old Testament Jehovah. The good God was more hidden, and could only be known and approached by those who were pure.

            The material world was considered to belong to the evil God and thus was itself evil. Hence, extreme asceticism and refusal to procreate was seen as a way to remove oneself as far as possible from the evil of physical existence. Some went as far as to starve themselves to death and were thought to have achieved sainthood.

            Jesus was seen as the Logos (word, emanation) of the good God. Therefore, the Cathars saw him as pure spirit and denied that he had an actual physical, human existence. They rejected most of the Old and New Testaments, associating these with the evil God. They did accept the gospel of John, primarily because this emphasises Jesus as Logos.

            1. Sufidreamer profile image81
              Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting - that is similar to studies I have been doing into mysticism and the Greek Orthodox Church. I still have much to research, but it seems to be very heavily influenced by the Zoroastrianism of dualism.

              No surprise considering the historical links and cultural exchanges between Greece and Persia.

              Throw in a little Gnosticism, and it becomes very complex neutral

          2. aguasilver profile image86
            aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Mark,

            Like I say, I've never met one to find out whether we would agree in all things! - but what I have read about them to date (and you may produce additional material that could change this) has been acceptable to me.

            Remember I did not come to my beliefs by being taught them in any doctrinal circumstance, I have always (since coming to faith) seen churches as places where I am safe, but not where I get taught or learn stuff in reality.

            Most of my belief systems come from external learning and study, not from any denominational church system.

            I hold the bible to contain the truth, even though we sometimes cannot see what that truth actually is, but my conclusions on what it contains are not constricted by religious doctrines.

            I happen to concur on many things that form the basis of traditional religion, after examination, not rote learning or tuition.

            Most of the folk I share fellowship with are aghast that I mix with such a broad spectrum of believers, but for me I know that ALL sections of the church contain SOME truth, but none contain ALL the truth.

            In other words I'm a pain in the butt for any church I'm in!

            But I do know my scripture, and I do know where they have flaked it.

            John

    2. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      The same "thinking" that the ancients had. Sun comes up? Must be magic, lets kill something! smile

    3. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      Is evolution an intelligent design where everything is relevant or random mutations where nothing is relevant or both?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Is evolution an ignorant design, an intelligent design, or no design at all?

    4. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      If evolution has no design, how would scientists trace back the evolution of humans? So this only leaves 2 options, correct? Evolution is ignorant or intelligent design?

    5. goldenpath profile image80
      goldenpathposted 6 years ago

      Through intelligent design all creatures will have a grandeur and magnified place in existence to a degree and on a level that cannot be fathomed by the mortal human mind. 

      Through intelligent design the muscle making gene, that is active in apes and enables them to have powerful jaws yet small craniums, is not active in humans allowing the cranium to grow and develop up to about age thirty.  This mortal "design" involving this gene has enabled man to reason, create art and to be inspired.

      Does any of science "prove" we derive from apes?  Not in the least.  I find the discoveries intriguing and I claim no fault in them.  However, they, in no way conflict with intelligent design.  When one sees them as working together rather than trying to pin one against the other one will gain a much greater appreciation and understanding of the Author of intelligent design.

      Genetically, there is at most 1% difference between humans and apes.  This proves nothing about our "springing" from the ape community.  We are all raw material here.  The spirits of apes were assigned and placed within the flesh of apes.  The same with birds, fish, humans and even the trees of the field.  Biological life continues to grow and develop and even mutate from time to time but inevitably will always conform to it's spiritual origin.

      1. Hokey profile image59
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who is the author?

        1. goldenpath profile image80
          goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The Author is the One whom the entire thread is centered around but not directly addressed - God.  Through His knowledge, which is far superior in all fields than ours, He is able to produce, physically, a mortal housing to accomodate the spirit of that creation.  Not just humans - but all creation.  For every creation there is a spirit origin.

          1. Hokey profile image59
            Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Which God?

            1. goldenpath profile image80
              goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The God the ancient Hebrews knew only as "I Am" because their God needed no name.  His power, authority and intelligence is beyond even a name.

              1. Hokey profile image59
                Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                From the bible?

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  no hokey, from Tor`ah. The actual phrase is: El; translated: everything, fullness, singular, he.
                  the only reason He gave that 'name' was so Moses could tell the people who sent him and why, also to tell Pharaoh who Moses was talking about.

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes the Torah is full of gods love! lol lol lol
                    You crack me up! lol

                  2. WriteAngled profile image92
                    WriteAngledposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But Genesis also refers to Elohim, which is a feminine plural

                    1. Hokey profile image59
                      Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      ...and my point is this is all written by humans so is subject to lies and corruption.

                    2. 0
                      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Actually, El is both male/female in Hebrew.
                      There is no distinction. El`Elohim is one version added to the many names associated with Him, for each desire of their hearts.

                    3. goldenpath profile image80
                      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      We do have an Eternal Mother in heaven as well as an Eternal Father.  I see where this would come in.

                2. goldenpath profile image80
                  goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, that is how Moses was instructed to address the people.  It gave legitimacy to the Hebrews of the validity of Moses' mission and purpose.

                  There is much to ponder in "I Am".  As we toss posts back and forth debating the existence of deity here we have a title that truly humbles the human heart and for a moment enlarges the understanding and gives the host a small peak at the magnitude of He who claims His place as "I Am". 

                  I have my name and through that name encompasses as my deeds, thoughts and beliefs.  For Him that cannot be claimed except our finite definition of "God".  It is really far beneath His stature and intelligence.  In fact, in pondering this title it actually enhances the vision of intelligent design.  We give the the title, "God", in order for our minds to grasp Him and place Him in some sort of context.  In actuality, though, this cannot be done and at the same time come close to affording Him the credit due.

                  1. Hokey profile image59
                    Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    . It doesnt bother you at all that you base your life on a book written by humans?

                    1. goldenpath profile image80
                      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Not really, and I do appreciate how you pose a question.  It is not demeaning or condescending as other exchanges I've had.  Thanks.

                      The language used at the time is not like ours today.  It centered around imagery and symbolism.  These things represented ideas or the state of a people.  They were really not a "story" writing people.  Laws and dictates were primary uses of writing.  However, there were those who were inspired to stand out of the norm and to produce acts and deeds before the people and to keep a written record according to His design.  Their ministry was not well received by many and was proven time and time again through death.

                      I understand your question, and it is valid.  However, when you have several ancient records from several different continents that all complement each other in doctrines and time lines it is very difficult to automatically discredit these records on the basis that they were fashioned by the hands of humans.  The human hand wrote them but it was the oversight of the Spirit that provided "what" to say.

     
    working