Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. How could you possibly get confused on that?

Yet it continually arises as evidence against the existence of "God".

There is a great body of data that indicates that god-poof as per genesis is not literally correct. There are a lot of ways of reading the bible; that one has no data for it and a lot against. It says nothing about whether there ia a god. Zero. Capiche?

?

You've nothing substantive to say, or you would not need to make things up, and talk childish nonsense.

Or maybe you're ignoring what I say and engaging in semantics. When I point out science, contrary to your statements, is rooted in experiment you present other definitions of science and tell me I forgot observation.

You said, and I quote;

"All science is founded in experiment" is also untrue, made up. There is no such definition.

You couldn't possibly be more wroing but rather than admit the erreor you deflect, change the subject, and play semantics. Science is founded in experiment. It is the only thing that keeps it grounded in reality and observation can't do this.

Now you'll ignore this and continue to ignore the rest of my argument.

You'll probably try deflection again.

 

[Audie]

Yet it continually arises as evidence against the existence of "God".



?



Or maybe you're ignoring what I say and engaging in semantics. When I point out science, contrary to your statements, is rooted in experiment you present other definitions of science and tell me I forgot observation.

You said, and I quote;



You couldn't possibly be more wroing but rather than admit the erreor you deflect, change the subject, and play semantics. Science is founded in experiment. It is the only thing that keeps it grounded in reality and observation can't do this.

Now you'll ignore this and continue to ignore the rest of my argument.

You'll probably try deflection again.

Yet it continually arises as evidence against the existence of "God".

Not from me, yet you falsely attribute it to me.

You'll probably try deflection again

No, actually I am going to go with ignore.

 

[cladking]

And where do you see that? Aren't you aware that all life forms that you see are in reality "transitional forms" if they reproduce?

As far as we can tell, all material objects change over time, and genes are material objects. If evolution didn't happen, that would be highly unusual based on what we're observing.

Species change. This is a fact both observationally and experimentally.

What isn't supported experimentally is that species change gradually. This is merely an hypothesis grounded in observation of fossils. What isn't supported is most of what people call the ToE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet it continually arises as evidence against the existence of "God".

From my experience only be creationists that think that refuting a literal interpretation of Genesis refutes God. The conflate their personal version of God with the only possible version of God.

Or maybe you're ignoring what I say and engaging in semantics. When I point out science, contrary to your statements, is rooted in experiment you present other definitions of science and tell me I forgot observation.

You said, and I quote;



You couldn't possibly be more wroing but rather than admit the erreor you deflect, change the subject, and play semantics. Science is founded in experiment. It is the only thing that keeps it grounded in reality and observation can't do this.

Now you'll ignore this and continue to ignore the rest of my argument.

You'll probably try deflection again.

It depends upon how one defines "experimentation". Each new fossil find is both an observation and could be said to be an experiment. Your claim is only 'correct' if you have a broad based definition of what an experiment is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Species change. This is a fact both observationally and experimentally.

What isn't supported experimentally is that species change gradually. This is merely an hypothesis grounded in observation of fossils. What isn't supported is most of what people call the ToE.

You appear to have just contradicted yourself here. It also appears that you are using an narrow definition of "experimentation" demonstrating that you were wrong in your previous post as well.

 

[metis]

Species change. This is a fact both observationally and experimentally.

What isn't supported experimentally is that species change gradually. This is merely an hypothesis grounded in observation of fossils. What isn't supported is most of what people call the ToE.

First of all, of course species change but most changes are incremental, thus compiling over time.

Finally, the basic ToE is the foundation for modern biology whether one recognizes it or not. Within that huge theory there are axioms, hypotheses, etc.

Gotta go-- back tomorrow.

 

[Jumi]

Why don't you show me a chicken that turned into a fish or whatever?

That is not evolution. That has in fact nothing to do with evolutionary science. It's made up, things like that are what some try to spread to Christians to keep them ignorant and on guard against what evolution theory really says, by making a straw man and fighting it. It works as long as the flock is willfully ignorant.

 

[cladking]

It depends upon how one defines "experimentation". Each new fossil find is both an observation and could be said to be an experiment. Your claim is only 'correct' if you have a broad based definition of what an experiment is.

I can stretch the definition of "experiment" to include prediction or anything which has a test of reality. I don't believe that interpretation of physical evidence (fossils) has a sufficient reality test to it. One person will look at a dinosaur bone and see an evolving creature and another something entirely else (like the hand of the Creator). Neither can be shown to be correct. Certainly interpretation of similar bones showing change over time is legitimate but a great deal more extrapolation than this occurs.

I would agree that predicting a fossil and then finding it is a sort of "experiment". But like all experiment much depends on details, specifics, and the ability to differentiate fact from opinion.

I'd be impressed by a steady progression of bones that show giraffes getting longer necks but I might be too easily impressed.

 

[cladking]

First of all, of course species change but most changes are incremental, thus compiling over time.

Finally, the basic ToE is the foundation for modern biology whether one recognizes it or not. Within that huge theory there are axioms, hypotheses, etc.

Gotta go-- back tomorrow.

A great deal of biology is based in experiment. It is as rock solid as any other science.

IMO we're just looking at species change from the wrong angle. We are building models that are not reflective of the reality of what drives this change.

 

[cladking]

That is not evolution. That has in fact nothing to do with evolutionary science. It's made up, things like that are what some try to spread to Christians to keep them ignorant and on guard against what evolution theory really says, by making a straw man and fighting it. It works as long as the flock is willfully ignorant.

Religion and science both ring true to individuals because both are based in reality. Religion is based in ancient science and science in experiment. "Evolution" and mathematics is where they overlap. This is not apparent because ancient perspective on change in species and mathematics are wholly different than ours. We think differently. Ya can't get there from here.

We have to understand our world indirectly. We see what we believe whether it's real or not. Sure, science provides a means to format knowledge and gain new knowledge but we still see models and beliefs preferentially to reality. This is chiefly an artifact of language.

Our understanding of change in species might well be headed in the right direction but it doesn't change the fact that most models of ToE are more wrong than right, in all probability. Any "theory" that doesn't take the nature life and consciousness into consideration is probably misleading at best.

Ancient people developed the "theory of change in species" sufficiently to invent agriculture. Our ability to modify species is more related to technology than true understanding. We use counterweights in machines yet we don't understand gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can stretch the definition of "experiment" to include prediction or anything which has a test of reality. I don't believe that interpretation of physical evidence (fossils) has a sufficient reality test to it. One person will look at a dinosaur bone and see an evolving creature and another something entirely else (like the hand of the Creator). Neither can be shown to be correct. Certainly interpretation of similar bones showing change over time is legitimate but a great deal more extrapolation than this occurs.

I would agree that predicting a fossil and then finding it is a sort of "experiment". But like all experiment much depends on details, specifics, and the ability to differentiate fact from opinion.

I'd be impressed by a steady progression of bones that show giraffes getting longer necks but I might be too easily impressed.

Okay so you have merely confirmed Audie's claims about you There is a reason that proper science is done through the peer review process. Part of publishing a claim is to shown how one's work was done, what all of the data was, what assumptions were made if any and why. The list goes on. It also allows one's work to be reproduced by others. And you demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific method.


Here is a quick overview, and I may leave out some steps as a result. First there is observation of evidence. Then a hypothesis is formed that explains all observations. Next predictions are made using that hypothesis. And those predictions are seen if they occur. Please note, this does not "prove" a concept. One can only refute a hypothesis, one cannot prove them. What will occur is that the predictions are shown to be correct. This "confirms" the hypothesis, it does not "prove" it. The theory of evolution has been confirmed millions of times. There are no competing concepts that I am aware of. In the world of science that is as good as it gets.

That is why the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is largely correct. Any questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Religion and science both ring true to individuals because both are based in reality. Religion is based in ancient science and science in experiment. "Evolution" and mathematics is where they overlap. This is not apparent because ancient perspective on change in species and mathematics are wholly different than ours. We think differently. Ya can't get there from here.

We have to understand our world indirectly. We see what we believe whether it's real or not. Sure, science provides a means to format knowledge and gain new knowledge but we still see models and beliefs preferentially to reality. This is chiefly an artifact of language.

Our understanding of change in species might well be headed in the right direction but it doesn't change the fact that most models of ToE are more wrong than right, in all probability. Any "theory" that doesn't take the nature life and consciousness into consideration is probably misleading at best.

Ancient people developed the "theory of change in species" sufficiently to invent agriculture. Our ability to modify species is more related to technology than true understanding. We use counterweights in machines yet we don't understand gravity.

No, religion is not based upon "ancient science". That is clearly not the case. How was this religion tested? What reasonable tests could show it to be false?

You keep confirming that you do not understand the scientific method. Let me help:

 

[cladking]

Here is a quick overview, and I may leave out some steps as a result. First there is observation of evidence. Then a hypothesis is formed that explains all observations. Next predictions are made using that hypothesis. And those predictions are seen if they occur. Please note, this does not "prove" a concept. One can only refute a hypothesis, one cannot prove them. What will occur is that the predictions are shown to be correct. This "confirms" the hypothesis, it does not "prove" it. The theory of evolution has been confirmed millions of times. There are no competing concepts that I am aware of. In the world of science that is as good as it gets.

That is why the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is largely correct. Any questions?

Yes. Why did you leave out experiment again?

Maybe it's because there are no experiments supporting ToE.

 

[cladking]

How was this religion tested?

"Religion" was never tested and is not in any real way scientific.

Ancient science was based on the logic inherent in the wiring of the brain expressed as language which had the same natural logic that makes mathematics work. Ancient science, just like modern cosmology, did not employ experiment, just logic. It was observation > logic and from that perspective species change looks different. Their understanding of species change allowed them to invent agriculture which is the technology that saved the species (homo omnisciencis) after the collapse of the "tower of babel".

This looks very odd to you. But I wager you have no evidence or logic to show it is wrong. More importantly this theory explains a great deal that science currently can not. This theory makes accurate predictions.

While religion is not scientific the fact is it rings true to people because it is based in the logic of ancient science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Why did you leave out experiment again?

Maybe it's because there are no experiments supporting ToE.

There is no point giving the experiments until you understand the concept. So far you have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Religion" was never tested and is not in any real way scientific.

So you contradict yourself right off the bat.

Ancient science was based on the logic inherent in the wiring of the brain expressed as language which had the same natural logic that makes mathematics work. Ancient science, just like modern cosmology, did not employ experiment, just logic. It was observation > logic and from that perspective species change looks different. Their understanding of species change allowed them to invent agriculture which is the technology that saved the species (homo omnisciencis) after the collapse of the "tower of babel".

You need to learn what "science" is. You may call that lore, or myth, but "science" is a much younger concept. It is a problem solving method. At best you are merely describing philosophy.

This looks very odd to you. But I wager you have no evidence or logic to show it is wrong. More importantly this theory explains a great deal that science currently can not. This theory makes accurate predictions.

What do you want refuted? The tower of Babel myth? There is no point. There is no support for the concept, there is nothing to refute. We know how new languages arise, no god need apply.

While religion is not scientific the fact is it rings true to people because it is based in the logic of ancient science.

No, it is at best based upon confirmation bias. Logic leads one away from religion.

 

[gnostic]

1) The Cambrian Explosion, revealing fully formed organisms spontaneously, without precursors. Not predicted by Darwinism...discovered even before Darwin, but the expected precursors still eluding the scientists, Lol.

2) The extreme variety and huge number -- in the billions -- of discovered species of both fauna and flora, in only c.600 my, the results of an unguided, mindless mechanism? Give me a break!

3) The precise, functional 'dual language' regulating proteins in the DNA. The discovery "stunned" scientists -- what, not 'predicted'?

Lol.

The Cambrian Explosion is not as sudden as you think. It lasted between 20 to 30 million years, hockeycowboy.

The Homo genus has been around less than 2.5 million years, with the species Homo sapiens being around 200,000 years. The modern human or the Homo sapiens sapiens subspecies has been around less than 50,000 years.

So 20 million years is a lot longer any Homo species, and it isn’t as spontaneous as you think.

 

[cladking]

You need to learn what "science" is.

Hey, at least I know it's not science without experiment. At least I know it's not science without metaphysics.

Unfortunately no one can possibly understand the nature of science and the possibility other sciences can exist without at least understanding metaphysics. In order to understand two sciences you have to start by understanding one. You would need to also understand why math works to understand ancient science so this is probably a lost cause here.

Maybe I'll try a different tack.

 

[cladking]

So you contradict yourself right off the bat.

No. What I actually said was that religion was based on ancient science. I never said or intended to imply that it was in any way whatsoever "scientific". Astrology is based on science but that hardly makes it scientific. String theory and evolution are also based on science.

 

[Deeje]

We've been through this all before and the issue of "speciation" is that new species can and have emerged that cannot reproduce with the originals, therefore they are of different "kinds". What you cannot and have not ever produced is the supposed magical wall that prevents "micro-evolution" from going into "macro-evolution". Until you or others can produce that, then one logically must assume that this "wall" simply does not appear to exist.

Species of the same "kind" are not a different taxonomic family, are they? Speciation produces variety within ONE kind, NOT new "kinds" altogether. Darwin's finches were a simply a different variety of the same bird, adapted to a different environment......same with the tortoises and iguanas. Why do scientists ignore this fact?

The "wall" is what keeps all species separate on this planet. In the oceans, what makes only the same species of fish reproduce when they are sharing their environment with many different species? Land animals likewise only mate with their own kind. There is your "wall". The only changes that take place are minor adaptations that affect cosmetic appearance or to facilitate different food sources.

With interspecies breeding (artificially mated by man) like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys, the offspring are invariably hybrid. It is the end of the genetic line.....so the genetic barriers exist in nature, but scientists ignore them.

Also, you ignore what the fossil record shows, thus making up or parroting stories about there being "no transitional forms" when each of us is a "transitional form". And then you ignore the results of the massive gnome testing that clearly shows an evolutionary pattern.

We all know that the fossil record is meager and creates more questions than it answers. It is a lousy way to determine anything when the gaps are filled in with nothing but imagination about what "might have" or "could have" taken place to fill them. Graphs and diagrams do not make something true when it cannot be proven. Without proof, there can be no facts.

For those who believe in ID, and direct creation, there are no gaps to fill because they never existed in the first place. Science creates its own unanswerable questions. The Bible provides satisfying answers to all the important questions.

But they're certainly not always and that's the point, plus you are ignoring the fact that many mutations may be neutral but could become important later.

Did you look up the beneficial mutations in humans metis? Earth shattering aren't they?

A "neutral" mutation is one that does not alter anything in the organism for better or worse. IOW, you wouldn't even know it had taken place. How could such a mutation become important later? Can you give examples?

BTW, why would a loving God create miscarriages and severe birth defects? And don't come back and try to blame that on "the Fall" because why would a loving God punish children with death or birth defects because someone a long time ago did some wrong?

No metis, a loving God would not do anything detrimental to his creation for the sake of watching them suffer. Understanding the mechanics of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ allows those with spiritual discernment (a faculty not inherent in all humans) to understand why God could allow the first humans to reproduce in a sinful state and pass that on to their children. (Romans 5:12)

To God everything is temporary and will be undone in the future with no ill effect for anyone. His adversary has made claims about the validity of God's sovereign right to set reasonable limits for his human creation. In the Book of Job we see that God allowed a test on the most faithful man alive at the time, to prove that satan was wrong. The test was hard but the outcome was wonderful, and Job looked forward to a resurrection where his whole family will be reunited in the future.....all 20 of his children will be returned to him and his wife in the resurrection. (Job 42:12; 16-17; John 5:28-29)

The complete absurdity of your position is that you demand "proof" for evolution and yet you do not apply that same principle to your own religious beliefs. When you can establish without a doubt that there is only one creator-god and that it's the God of the Bible, please let us know. I can guarantee that you cannot do that through any objectively-derived evidence.

If you have ever read any of my posts on this topic, you would know that I have never once said I had proof for God in any way that science can measure. They do not have what it takes to do such a measurement with God. As far as I can see, no evidence for macro-evolution is objectively derived.

What I have said all along is that ID believers and evolutionist each have a belief system based on faith in what others have said, and in the interpretation of their "evidence". IMO your evidence does not beat mine.

any religion or denomination that is anti-science has to be considered bogus. If they are lying to you on that, how many other lies are your leaders trying to convince you of?

I am not anti-science at all. We believe that God is the greatest scientist in existence and without creation scientists would have nothing to study. When science is proven and demonstrable, it is accepted....but when all you have is a weak unsupported theory that most want to pass off as fact...then that is a different kettle of fish.

Macro-evolution is not supported by real evidence...it is supported by suggestion and imagination. But those blinded by the 'science' rather than the actual facts, will never see it.

Fortunately, most Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and their theologians and their pastors don't teach such anti-science nonsense, such as the synagogue I had belonged to and the church that I go to with my wife. They actually embrace science and not make up or parrot stories to ignore it.

"Most Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and their theologians and their pastors" are selling out to sleep with God's enemy. It was foretold that they would do this. "Babylon the great" is described as a 'harlot' for a very good reason. God's people are told in no uncertain terms to "get out" of that corrupt 'city'. (Revelation 17:3-6; Revelation 18:5-4) There are dire consequences for not heeding this command.

Anyhow, we been through this ad nauseum, and I really have no interest in rehashing the hash, so I'll give you the last word.

Take care.

For the benefit of the newbies, thanks for the opportunity.

You take care too....