Apologies in advance for the length of this...there was a lot to address......
Exactly. Everything in you screams for a Designer because you have the preconceived bias that one exists...
And you have pre-conceived ideas that one doesn't. How are we different?
You cannot separate your belief in this designer from factual study of biology and concepts, which what I'm pushing back against.
The factual study of biology actually supports belief in a designer. I was a rather staunch believer in evolution in my younger days, dazzled by the men of science who taught it as fact. But the more I listened to their explanations, the more I realized how much guesswork was involved in interpreting their "evidence". They made gigantic leaps in their assumptions and expected us to just accept them. This is when I started to question things. The more I learned about biology, the more I saw purposeful design, not only in the creatures themselves but in their habitat, reproduction and food supply. These were not accidents but beautifully designed systems.
Like I suggested you do with reading articles past the point where they validate your claims, you also have to study environments and organisms past the point where they validate your claims - that's the only way to learn new things. You have to consume as much data as possible on something before positing your conclusion. Intelligent Designers don't do that. They find a rare and delicate organism, existing in a rare and delicate environment, and they say "Look! Obviously there is a God. Conversation over"
Reading "past" these things would not convince me, simply because the very idea is ridiculous to me....much like the Emperor's new clothes. Evolution is naked but parades around like it is elegantly dressed. I will call it out because "naked" it is what I see. Men giving credit to something mindless for the wonders of nature is saying a lot about how intelligent they really are IMV.
The questions that you ask and the assertions that you make show an extremely limited scientific understanding.
How can you criticize something that you don't properly understand?
How much do you actually have to understand about garbage to know it stinks?
Living examples of organisms which show a transition from one type of lifestyle to another are nothing more than examples of what previous similar organisms might have been like. Simply making the claim doesn't make it accurate; the evidence that supports that claim makes it accurate. There is an assumption that because we have gliding reptiles, there probably existed previous types of flying reptiles. To test that, we now know to look for similar gliding reptiles in the fossil record. Finding those fossils substantiates the claim... And those fossils exist.
Now this is where I ask why it is that evolution is taught as fact, when it clearly isn't? By your own admission, they are assumptions, based on how "evidence" is interpreted. What if their assumptions are wrong?...completely skewed by their own bias? The religious interpretation was a bit ridiculous, so this is where educated men came to offer something equally ridiculous but not sounding as if it was in the realms of religious myth. Unfortunately humans often swing from one extreme to the other.....in this case, neither were right.
I have no problem with scientists making assumptions about anything....just be truthful in stating that they are educated guesses and not verifiable facts. Forcing evolution to be taught to children in school is not teaching science...this is science fiction. There is no more real evidence for evolution than we have for an intelligent designer of all things. All I have ever asked for is the truth.
What do gliding marsupials or mammals serve as evidence of? Well, they serve as evidence of transitional species between non-flying mammals and marsupials & flying mammals and marsupials.
What if they are not transitional species at all, but simply designed for that life? Why is it assumed that amphibious creatures are a transitional life form? Bias has led men to that conclusion. Take the bias away and you simply have creatures beautifully designed to inhabit two realms....lots of them.
How do we know this, since it sounds like an assumption? We know this because the exact same assumption about previous species held true and we know this because there are fossils supporting the assumption. All of these substantiated claims serve as just one tiny example, and a mere fraction of the evidence showing how evolutionary theory operates.
You are missing a vital point....the "assumption" about the previous species was wrong too. A series of assumptions has added up to a mountain of false evidence, interpreted with the express purpose of leading men in the wrong direction.
So you're saying that your dogs did not have hundreds of thousands of ancestors, constituting different breeds, spread out over millenia? You can attribute that program to whatever deity you choose. But the factual historical development and evolution of that genetically inherited trait didn't suddenly just poof into existence in your dogs because god said so.
Now this is where I see blinkers on you and your fellow atheists. You say that these traits didn't just "poof into existence" and yet that is exactly what you believe about life itself. Somewhere in the dim dark past, billions of years ago...."poof" life just happened.....and then it began to change and develop in an undirected way to result in all the life forms we see on planet Earth.
I'm sorry, but that is more fantasy than even Bible believers could accept.
I would argue that we know much more about the "works of the greatest scientist in existence" because we actually observe it and study it. We probe the ins-and-outs of all manner of biological niches so we can know how the world, and ultimately ourselves, operate.
And the more you study it, the more you realize how much there is still to know. Human understanding of the workings in the natural world have only scratched the surface in probing "nature". Yet how do you define "nature"? How do you define "life"? How does the puny, limited understanding of supposedly educated scientists manage to eliminate a Creator when all they have is guesswork, supported by other guesswork. (Coupled with a desire to distance themselves from religion)
Someone laid a really bad foundation not very long ago, and others have built an elaborate structure on it....very impressive to some but precarious when you inspect those foundations. The cracks are obvious to some but others are just impressed by the building and the ones who did the construction.
You guys say "That's pretty. Thank you God for your magic poofing powers."
You see the condescension in your argument? That is what atheists use as a weapon to discourage those who see through this incredible web of deceit. Ridicule works in making people feel inadequate when it comes to standing up and calling this whole thing out. They claim a weight of evidence when the weight is measured in feathers, tiny bone fragments and teeth. There is no weight of evidence that is not biastly interpreted to support your belief system.
I've considered going back through our discussions and compiling an archive of all of the supporting references that myself and others have given you but thought better of it because of the amount of time it would take. If nothing else, the vast amounts of substantiating documentation that we've given you should at least affirm that Evolutionary science isn't some random cockamamy idea. It's founded in thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed studies, supported by literally millions of fossil evidences, corroborated by all other independent scientific disciplines, and can be described by even we lay people in rather explicit terms. The fact that you reject all evidence in lieu of your presupposition for God is no fault of the evidence.
"Peer reviewed studies"...what a joke. How does one evolutionist "peer review" another evolutionist's work? All they peer review for is fraud, which as we know has happened quite a bit in this field. The corroboration is in supporting each other's findings based on a biased position to begin with. This is nonsense.
I admit that I have a bias. Going into any of these debates, I will readily admit that I am inclined towards the naturalistic explanation of things. In many places on this forum I have openly described myself as an atheist monist naturalist. You can add whatever other adjective you like to describe my thought processes or philosophies. But that bias does not stop me from considering other view points, or from studying them, and it certainly would never stop me from relinquishing that bias in favor of new or better evidence.
Evidence for the Creator is all around you. I cannot force you to see it and the Creator does not require you to believe in him. By the time he introduces himself to the human race, it will be too late to acknowledge him. He has plans for this earth and indeed the whole universe. It will not include those who have no need of him. If you are happy with that, then what more can I say? There are spiritual people in the world and purely physical ones. It's all in the heart of individuals to make their choices.
The fact that I have a bias, however, does not mean that I am incapable of studying and understanding other sides. The only reason that I engage you so often is because your arguments and your data are simply inaccurate.
They are only inaccurate from your perspective. You have chosen a position and see things only from that perspective. I do not share it.
They're terribly flawed, even from a religious perspective. Your declarations are inconsistent with your own theories.
Please explain how they are "terribly flawed" and "inconsistent" with my own theories?
You feign knowledge, and in fact ridicule, topics of which you are either naive, ignorant, or both. I do not believe that you are stupid; you're just terribly misinformed.
Well, I believe one of us is terribly misinformed......time will tell, won't it? It's all about where and in whom we place our confidence.
The fact that you attempt to rebuke scientific journals with Watchtower articles is evidence of this.
I haven't resorted to very much material at all from WT sources. I have mostly presented a few YouTube videos and quoted sources provided by evolutionist's to demonstrate how much guesswork forms the foundations of this colossal edifice. The bigger the building...the bigger the collapse unfortunately.
I have made several friends on this forum of the religious persuasion because I can rationally engage them on their terms. If your terms were as rational as you think they are, I think you would read these debates a little differently.
Your relationship to others on these forums has nothing to do with what I post. How people read these debates is up to them. I just call it as I see it. The readers will make up their own minds....maybe that is what you worry about.
...Except for the millions that have died off and gone extinct, right?
Those now-extinct species weren't as beautifully programmed or designed, by your own logic.
My logic is not at all offended by God's creation. All that extinction took place long before man came on the scene, so unless the Creator tells us why those things took place, we can only resort to what evolutionists use to support their arguments...speculation, supposition and imagination. What would be the point? It would be equally wrong.
But you should leave the teaching of science and the natural world to those who actually study it. And you should not attempt to discredit those who study biology just because you don't like what their studying of the natural world has revealed about the natural world....
Again you reveal your bias. We have no problem with studies of the natural world, provided that the truth is told. I hear the word "design" used in the same sentence as "evolution" and in this I see someone inserting a belief system into their "study" and "teaching" of the natural world. If only it was said that "we believe" this or that took place, instead of the "might have" or "could have" being presented as "must have". Scientists were not there to record any of the findings they assume to have taken place. That is the truth of it. Don't present something as fact, when it is an assumption.
As I've stated before, my debating with you has nothing at all to do with your faith and everything to do with your inaccurate rebuttals of science and academia.
It is your opinion that my rebuttals are inaccurate. Science and academia are not infallible....are they?
It certainly is miraculous. Life is awesome. But how is that evidence for god, other than wishful thinking?
I reject the idea that I take these amazing processes for granted. While evolution may be "mindless", it doesn't in any way detract from the immense beauty of its existence.
How is the admiration of beauty, art, music, poetry, literature or theatre in any way related to evolution? What survival advantage is there in those things...and why do we not see these traits in animals? Have they unearthed any cave paintings by apes?...elephants?...giraffes?
If you want to make this claim that all of these natural processes are attributed to god, then substantiate the existence of your god.
I cannot provide proof of my God any more than science can prove evolution. I look at the evidence for his existence in creation and see his handiwork everywhere. You choose to explain it without him. That is your choice.
But in the branch of science called bio-mimetics, men with academic credentials...and very clever minds, endeavor to mimic the designs of things seen in nature. If men of science with qualifications and intelligence are needed to copy the designs seen in nature...how come the original needed no designer?
Again, the amount of data and evidence supporting evolution numbers in the millions. The fact that you reject that evidence is no fault of the evidence.
Invented data is not evidence. The supposition of learned men is nothing more than educated guessing...not fact. This is what you can't see around.
You accept micro-evolution based on precisely the same type of evidence, but then reject it in kind when it confronts deeper aspects of your theology. Why?
No we don't. We call it adaptation...science can call it micro-evolution.....as if one is necessarily proof for the other....they are not. To take small changes in a species (as adaptation to a changed environment or food supply) and then apply it to macro-evolution is a huge leap in anybody's estimations. It is an amazing assumption that from a microscopic cell that magically sprang into life billions of years ago, undirected except by blind chance, formed itself into all we see on earth...? Seriously, you can believe that if you wish...but I cannot.
Again, I ask you, what are those roadblocks? You've asserted this several times, as have other Creationists. If genetic roadblocks to speciation exist, tell us what they are and how they work.
"Kinds" are the roadblocks. One "kind" cannot become another "kind". The Bible describes what a "kind" is.
Also, what do you think of Christians who have absolutely no problem with evolutionary science? Are they likewise fooled and distracted by the devil?
IMO...yes. They have sold out to the opposition. They have swallowed the deception, hook line and sinker.
Defection is a word I would use. Compromise is another. I will do neither. I don't need defectors to tell me how God created the living world.
Before science, people died from such devastating illnesses as a cold or the flu... Since these "godless" men of science have come onto the scene, life expectancy and quality of life has risen exponentially. I'll trust the fruits of their labors over baseless assertions of divinity or deity any day.
No, people today are dying from completely preventable "lifestyle" diseases. Many cancers, diabetes and heart disease are the result of modified foods produced for mass consumption or those that hide massive amounts of trans fats and sugar. These are designed for shelf life, and flavor.....not nutrition. Poor nutrition and mineral deficiency produces illness. Artificial environments like air conditioned office buildings, help spread disease.
And, along with all those "wonder" drugs that science has invented are the inevitable side effects.....sometimes worse than the malady. All designed as "treatments"....but not much in the way of "cures" are ever seen.
They are also implicating the use of cell phones in the increase in brain cancer. Technology is killing us, yet we will not give up our addiction to it. Exposure to radiation from our devices is probably going to result in many more preventable deaths in the future.
Before science, we just died from cold and flu? Has science prevented colds and flu? Or are we now facing much greater risks from what science has created? Anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria are lurking in hospitals....where they were bred and passed on to vulnerable patients.
When science can produce humans that care about others and sacrifice their own comforts and profit for the well-being of those less fortunate, then it will have something to boast about.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
From the way I see this scripture....it is absolutely true.
Every good thing created by science, is cancelled out by a heinous one. We have science to thank for the invention of atomic weapons, which have the potential to eliminate all life on this planet. All it would take is the decision of one misguided man.
And what about the invention of plastic.....who could imagine life without plastic, yet we are drowning in plastic pollution. Marine life is threatened every day because of the wonders of science.
Have you noticed that what man produces is polluting but what God created is all biodegradable. Recycling is what nature does without prompting....but what does man do? Everything he touches turns to pollution with profit as the only concern. Who is going to clean up the earth? Do you see anyone putting their hand up?
Thankfully we do not have to rely on man.....
"But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Rev 11:18)
The day of judgment is coming. You don't have to believe that it is, but this is what the Bible says.
