Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[TrueBeliever37]

You don't have to have confidence.
You have to look at how reliable are the observations and experiments.
You confuse yourself with what is belief and with what are facts and evidence.You also abuse the belief in God.
There is a reason why many Churches have accepted Evolution.

Just because you don't understand it , doesn't mean it is false.

You can't observe anything from 350 million years ago, let alone a billion years ago. No witnesses - no proof - only speculation.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Try presenting the whole quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.​

​

I'm Tired Of Seeing This Charles Darwin Quote Taken Out Of Context

In the sixth chapter of On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin addresses "Organs of Extreme Perfection" – organs like the eye, the formation of which

gizmodo.com

Thanks for providing the full quote. I was only presenting what was sent to me in a link.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I see a few creationists accuse scientists of speculation which isn’t true. It’s a false accusation used to justify not learning science.

Let’s note that science follows facts and observations while your religious perspective does not. Science is credible, creationism is not. So your bias and hostility towards science is consistent with your lack of understanding. Your opinion is irrelevant. And we don’t care.

Get science right, then get back to us.

Get real science with actual proof, and then get back to me. Just because scientists make a claim as to how something was 350 million years ago - that's not proof to me.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you were new to earth, and you were discovering animals for the first time, would you look at a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard and think to yourself, those are the same animal? We turned dogs into chihuahua's and Saint Bernards in 200 years of selective breeding. If it were to continue, what would those dogs look like in a million years? What if instead of size, we started selecting for scaliness of skin and we ended up with chihuahuas with tree bark skin, and then we started selecting for large eyes, and we got treebark chihuahuas with HUGE eyes. What if we started selecting for tongue length and kept going until we had a treebark, huge eyed, chihuahua with an anteater tongue? What if after all that breeding, the Chihuahua became so genetically dissimilar to a regular dog that they could no longer mate?

I accept those kind of changes. But it's still a dog. And that's not natural selection anyway, that's intentional intervention. But I don't think you could turn those dogs into a bird or a reptile or fish , no matter how hard you tried.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see a few creationists accuse scientists of speculation which isn’t true. It’s a false accusation used to justify not learning science.

Let’s note that science follows facts and observations while your religious perspective does not. Science is credible, creationism is not. So your bias and hostility towards science is consistent with your lack of understanding. Your opinion is irrelevant. And we don’t care.

Get science right, then get back to us.

It is interesting to me the demonstrations by so many creationists that reveal a most dismal understanding of science and yet maintain a high confidence that they can evaluate scientific findings with ease.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin was relevant in 1860. In 2024 he is only relevant as a historical person in the progress of science. Creationism often cites Darwin as if modern biology hasn’t evolved into greater understanding and certainty.

How is it fair to judge Darwin by today’s understanding?

And apparently, without even the understanding of theory that existed with Darwin. Living in a society 150 plus years in advance of Darwin's society and still they cannot get it right.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

What in your view makes it impossible? Can you point to any particular errors in the reasoning from the examinable evidence ?`

I don't find it reasonable that a scientist can tell us what things were like a billion years ago, or for that matter even 350 million years ago, with any degree of certainty.

What laid the first dinosaur egg?

I see no reasonable evidence that natural selection would make sight or hearing or taste start developing to begin with. To me natural selection would be unable to even recognize a minuscule change toward say hearing for example. It would take so long to develop actual hearing - how would any one minor development even be seen as an improvement so that it would continue to keep improving? Many subtle changes would still be deafness, so if no recognition of improvement along the way, why would it continue?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The understanding of evolution and natural selection in creationism is astounding. As well, the ability to argue personal incredulity as a valid reason to reject a theory. I had no idea. That is some incredible logic in motion.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is interesting to me the demonstrations by so many creationists that reveal a most dismal understanding of science and yet maintain a high confidence that they can evaluate scientific findings with ease.

I tend to see a lot of gullibility from the scientific community. Not trying to think critically for themselves. Why do you have confidence in someone telling you they know what happened 350 million years ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't observe anything from 350 million years ago, let alone a billion years ago. No witnesses - no proof - only speculation.

Not true. When events happen they sometimes leave evidence behind. We can observe the past through the evidence that was left behind.

Here is a helpful hint, just because you are unable to do something, such as reconstruct what happened in the past from the evidence of what occurred, you should not make the error of assuming that others cannot do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tend to see a lot of gullibility from the scientific community. Not trying to think critically for themselves. Why do you have confidence in someone telling you they know what happened 350 million years ago?

Because others can observe the same thing. Because with a little training and a lot of handholding you could see the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't find it reasonable that a scientist can tell us what things were like a billion years ago, or for that matter even 350 million years ago, with any degree of certainty.

What laid the first dinosaur egg?

That is a poorly asked question. There was no "first dinosaur". Do you know what an emergent process is? There was no "first dinosaur". Eventually there was a species that had enough of the traits to be called dinosaurs that the human term was applied to them. And because different experts value different traits more than others there will not be hundred percent agreement as to which was the first species of dinosaurs. In fact expert will put fuzzy terms on the earliest of dinosaurs indicating that they may not be considered to be dinosaurs by all.

I see no reasonable evidence that natural selection would make sight or hearing or taste start developing to begin with. To me natural selection would be unable to even recognize a minuscule change toward say hearing for example. It would take so long to develop actual hearing - how would any one minor development even be seen as an improvement so that it would continue to keep improving? Many subtle changes would still be deafness, so if no recognition of improvement along the way, why would it continue?

You probably do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Would you like to learn?

By the way, what makes you think that "deafness" existed before hearing? Even a totally deaf person can still feel vibrations. Put him in front of a thumping bass drum and he will feel it. That is just "hearing" on a different level.

 

[Dimi95]

Why do you have confidence in someone telling you they know what happened 350 million years ago?

Common sense can be usefull if you understand what is logic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tend to see a lot of gullibility from the scientific community.

I'm sure you believe you do. I'm not sure how you can know, given your personal demonstration of scientific literacy that so hardly seems measurable.

Not trying to think critically for themselves.

And you say this while not applying that yourself by anything you have demonstrated. How many scientists have you had the chance to engage? Really?

Why do you have confidence in someone telling you they know what happened 350 million years ago?

They provide the evidence and reasoning.

I have an education that has the benefit of providing a sound basis for understanding science.

I've spoken with 100's of scientists. Attended meetings and discussions about the science and the techniques employed in the various methodologies used.

I was taught actual critical thinking skills and not just saying that when I don't really have them or have them and don't really exercise them.

What do you have really? Somebody in church told you it was all bogus and that is the basis for your rejection? Coming from the religious background that I do, I would say that is the most likely.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tend to see a lot of gullibility from the scientific community. Not trying to think critically for themselves. Why do you have confidence in someone telling you they know what happened 350 million years ago?

Of course you will no doubt provide the evidence for this claim and then tie it all together to demonstrate that accepting scientific explanations is entirely faulty and they should be rejected.

I'll wait. I haven't reached retirement age yet.

 

[F1fan]

I don't find it reasonable that a scientist can tell us what things were like a billion years ago, or for that matter even 350 million years ago, with any degree of certainty.

Then you don't understand the science. I'll bet you've never bothered to look into it.

Well educated people understnd it, what's your issue?

What laid the first dinosaur egg?

A dinosaur.

Of course dinosaurs evolved already laying eggs. Even human women have eggs, they just aren't laid. Mammals gestate the eggs inside their body.

I see no reasonable evidence that natural selection would make sight or hearing or taste start developing to begin with. To me natural selection would be unable to even recognize a minuscule change toward say hearing for example. It would take so long to develop actual hearing - how would any one minor development even be seen as an improvement so that it would continue to keep improving? Many subtle changes would still be deafness, so if no recognition of improvement along the way, why would it continue?

Your lack of knowledge isn't an argument. All your words tell us is that you don't understand the science.

 

[F1fan]

I tend to see a lot of gullibility from the scientific community. Not trying to think critically for themselves. Why do you have confidence in someone telling you they know what happened 350 million years ago?

Did you know that the Kepler telescope can look deep into space and in doing so can see back in time? Do you know how? Of course you don't. It's because the speed of light is such that what we can see in deep space has happened light years ago. Even the light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth. So space telesopes can see what happened billions of light years ago because the light has taken that long to reach us.

 

[F1fan]

Get real science with actual proof, and then get back to me.

Creationists are frauds and reject science, so we know your requests here are not genuine.

Just because scientists make a claim as to how something was 350 million years ago - that's not proof to me.

You don't understand science, so quite predictable that it goes over your head.

 

[blü 2]

I don't find it reasonable that a scientist can tell us what things were like a billion years ago, or for that matter even 350 million years ago, with any degree of certainty.

You need to understand what the actual process is. The scientist asks herself questions such as, "What was Earth's atmosphere like 4 bn years ago? How hot was it? How much water was there?" She and her associates go looking for information, especially from geology, checking to see if James Webb can offer any possibilities from observing star formation, whether the Martian surveys might have anything relevant to think about, what the tectonic experts might be able to add ─ and so on. What lines of enquiry are suggested, what are ruled out, what are other scientists saying?

The team may not reach an important conclusion, in which case they may write up what they've been able to rule out and why.

Or they may find that a particular thesis supported by the evidence points in a particular direction ─ in which case they write that up as well.

What you read in the science press ─ which I trust you follow ─ will be only highlights, the conclusions reached and the alternatives ruled out. It's a summary of what our best-informed understanding of early times on earth presently is.

Science proceeds by empiricism and induction. It doesn't produce absolute statements, but it can verify from the evidence the statements it makes. Stories in books, including ancient books like the bible, don't have any such basis. Many of them are folktales, and read accordingly ─ Moses and Aaron's contest with Pharoah's magicians is a nice clear example, as is the Exodus, And you doubtless know that no archaelogical evidence supports the Egyptian Captivity reported in the bible.

And so on. The authors of the bible were up to date with the cosmology of their day, so they thought the earth was flat, and immovably fixed at the center of things and the sun stars and moon all went round it. (I can't recall whether I mentioned >these< to you before or not, but they're worth your consideration.)

What laid the first dinosaur egg?

The way you've phrased that, clearly not a dinosaur ─ but (if we imagine we have a suitably specific and detailed definition of "dinosaur") equally clearly a veryverynearlydinosaur.

I see no reasonable evidence that natural selection would make sight or hearing or taste start developing to begin with. To me natural selection would be unable to even recognize a minuscule change toward say hearing for example.

You seem to think natural selection is purposeful. No, it's not. It works because it proceeds by a simple test of success or failure ─ did this critter live long enough to pass its genes on to another generation? If yes, that may be luck, or it may be that those particular genes produced one particular kind of advantage to surviving long enough to breed. And if the latter, then that advantage may be decisive and become characteristic of that particular species ("species" loosely defined here, since we're talking about changes to a species). Not only is evolution quite a simple idea but it works.

 

[YoursTrue]

So when you present things as facts such as, it happened 325 million years ago. Is that eastern standard or mountain pacific time?

Or if they say an egg was a certain thickness millions of years ago. How do they know? Did they measure it with a ruler or a micrometer?

There are no witnesses to these things. It is just speculation. Claiming something happened a billion years ago is not proof.

I don't trust what they are presenting as factual in those articles one bit. They guess and make things up and then have to say it might have been, based on weathering rates, it appears to be, etc.

I do agree they, the writers of science reports, will make things up in the details such as millions/billions, etc. of years, and relate what they have learned, even if they don't know if it is true. Not saying they will not describe what they find in reference to fossils, but surely saying that they will go way beyond what the surface shows.