Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

Nonsense.

Really?

Each person obviously sees what he believes and expects. This has been shown anecdotally and scientifically more times than can be counted. This is why a message can't be relayed from person to person. We each interpret words differently so repeat them back changed.

This is drifting off topic though so I'll start a new thread soon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most change in life occurs over moments. Change in species can occur as quickly but generally requires a small percentage of the life expectancy of the parent species. This might be hours or days and is not often much over a few decades.

Our last one played out over 1200 years but it was a most unusual speciation event. Essentially we merely changed from being digital to analog. Perhaps this won't be seen as being speciation at all but then the term is just a word and taxonomy so has no status in reality. We changed. We didn't change as a result of a mutation as homo sapiens had arisen. There was a sort of bottleneck.

Hand waving is not evidence. You misuse terminology that you do not understand and have not supported your claims. Is it any wonder that no one takes you seriously here. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence, specifically scientific evidence? If you understood the concept you might be able to support your claims.

 

[cladking]

Would you like to discuss the nature of evidence, specifically scientific evidence? If you understood the concept you might be able to support your claims.

Everything that exists is evidence.

The logic that binds everything together leads to hypothesis formation and experiment design.

The Bible and each of its stories are evidence as are every grain of sand on the beach. Words chiseled in stone are the best evidence of all even if interpretation is indefinite.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Bible and each of its stories are evidence as are every grain of sand on the beach. Words chiseled in stone are the best evidence of all even if interpretation is indefinite.

Evidence of what though? That they were altered and mashed into shape so that they supported the overall doctrine that emerged. They are not proper evidence in the sense that one can take them at face value. Why on earth would anyone do so? And those last five words are important too. From what I understand, very little of the original material seems to survive intact in any religion.

 

[cladking]

Evidence of what though? That they were altered and mashed into shape so that they supported the overall doctrine that emerged. They are not proper evidence in the sense that one can take them at face value. Why on earth would anyone do so? And those last five words are important too. From what I understand, very little of the original material seems to survive intact in any religion.

I don't believe it is religion at all.

They (the ancients who were the origin of the Bible) didn't even have the word "belief".

I believe that the modern world is based on a misinterpretation of Ancient Language, ancient science, and ancient knowledge. This very much includes "science" because for most individuals most of their understanding is in the form of language and models, and not metaphysics and experiment.

 

[metis]

Sharks haven't "evolved" because they have encountered no bottleneck.

But they actually have evolved but not as much or as quickly as us humans have.

What? Plants? Yes, plants apparently have a low level of consciousness. Indeed, I'm not convinced it's very low level since even a bacterium can have behavior.

Yes, plants even have a limited level of consciousness, which is what I was trying to communicate to you.

There's nothing "cosmic" about consciousness.

I used that terminology because many people I have discussed this with have used that terminology or something like it. Sorry if it doesn't apply to you.

No experiment has shown that even one rabbit has become a meal because it is "unfit".

We see it with all sorts of organism through controlled studies plus in "real life". Bacterium that used to be killed by certain chemicals or antibiotics have evolved to the point of being able to now swim in it (not literally). Changes in human anatomy over thousands of years relating to height, shape, lung capacity, etc. have shown this. Even most who refer to themselves as being "creationists" usually even admit this.

Life on Planet Earth is competitive, and this puts pressure on any society whereas the advantage for survival is to a large extent due to which is better adapted and which can more easily adjust to the changes in the environment, such as the "melanin moth" in jolly old England.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything that exists is evidence.

The logic that binds everything together leads to hypothesis formation and experiment design.

The Bible and each of its stories are evidence as are every grain of sand on the beach. Words chiseled in stone are the best evidence of all even if interpretation is indefinite.

You do not understand what is or what is not evidence and how to apply it. As a result you can't post evidence that supports your claims.

 

[cladking]

I used that terminology because many people I have discussed this with have used that terminology or something like it. Sorry if it doesn't apply to you.
We see it with all sorts of organism through controlled studies plus in "real life". Bacterium that used to be killed by certain chemicals or antibiotics have evolved to the point of being able to now swim in it (not literally). Changes in human anatomy over thousands of years relating to height, shape, lung capacity, etc. have shown this. Even most who refer to themselves as being "creationists" usually even admit this.

Life on Planet Earth is competitive, and this puts pressure on any society whereas the advantage for survival is to a large extent due to which is better adapted and which can more easily adjust to the changes in the environment, such as the "melanin moth" in jolly old England.

Simpler organisms do actually "evolve" more often through survival of the fittest. If a chemical toxic to a species slowly is introduced then there will be an "evolution".

This is far less true with higher life forms. If something kills one in the environment then it is likely to kill all individuals exposed. So it is behavior which limits the exposure of some individuals. If large numbers of individuals are selected out based on behavior there is a change in species.

Most all of the evidence we see supports this notion. This is the reason for the glaring lacks of missing links. What we see everywhere we look and what is supported by experiment is that all change in life is sudden. Gradual change is the stuff of Darwinism and not reality.

Again, I'm not suggesting that gradual change doesn't exist, merely that even gradual change is largely driven by localized population bottlenecks and mutation. "Survival of the fittest" by any name is not what drives the change in species.

 

[cladking]

...such as the "melanin moth" in jolly old England.

I haven't studied this in detail but have to believe that this is merely being misinterpreted. That a species can suddenly virtually disappear due to increased predation seems obvious and that another that can fill its niche with a much lower predation rate and take its place seems equally obvious. It's not evolution it's pollution.

Now if something had evolved a gas mask over many generations I'd be more impressed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't believe it is religion at all.

They (the ancients who were the origin of the Bible) didn't even have the word "belief".

I believe that the modern world is based on a misinterpretation of Ancient Language, ancient science, and ancient knowledge. This very much includes "science" because for most individuals most of their understanding is in the form of language and models, and not metaphysics and experiment.

I believe we have been here before and where we must part company. I have enough trouble with the evidence from the various religions without additional issues.

 

[cladking]

I believe we have been here before and where we must part company. I have enough trouble with the evidence from the various religions without additional issues.

My theory is not based on any religious "evidence" whatsoever. My theory simply explains a lot of the religious evidence. It also explains things like astrology and alchemy but it doesn't say that any of these are science, merely that they came from an interpretation of ancient science. The theory is principally based in modern science, physical evidence, and logic.

A large part of what I'm talking about here is a proper interpretation of ancient scientific theory. Ancient science said life changed suddenly and was caused by behavior and it was this scientific theory that led to the invention of agriculture. I was already coming to the same conclusion when I rediscovered ancient science disguised as (digital) metaphysical language that looks like superstitious gobbledty gook to everyone who speaks modern (analog) language.

The facts of "evolution", physics, and even linguistics say I'm right even though the interpretation of modern science says I'm wrong.

It's a strange situation with which I've been cursed. Better this than the trials of Job, though.

 

[cladking]

People today see a phrase like "words chiseled in stone" and assume those words are superstitious nonsense written by sun addled bumpkins. Certainly this does apply to many such words but it does not apply to those written in Ancient Language which are untranslatable.

I can't translate Ancient Language either but I've built models of the words and grammar so that I can extract author intent from them. But intent isn't the most amazing part. Intent is certainly very eye opening but the amazing thing is the nature of the language and their science.

Our belief that ancient people survived as superstitious bumpkins is highly illogical. Such creatures couldn't survive and procreate far less invent agriculture and cities. No, it was agriculture, ancient technology, that allowed the human race to survive the protracted dark ages until modern science was invented.

 

[Deeje]

Doesn't matter what I believe concerning such things, but I'd sooner believe what my eyes tend to tell me than what someone has written long ago when they had a hundredth or less of the knowledge we have today.

Well, it does matter what you believe according to the Bible. Of course you are free to accept whatever "truth" takes your fancy, but how sure are you that what you have been told is not the greatest con job in the world and you have fallen for it along with the majority of people on this planet in their haste to ditch religion?

What are your eyes really telling you?

You really believe that these are just accidental flukes of nature? If the one who made them is a trillion times more knowledge than today's scientists, I would trust him to tell me about the nature of living things, so much more than I would trust self appointed humans educated by other self appointed humans with egos the size of Texas.

Its easy to deny design when it isn't staring you in the face. If you think these are just fortunate accidents, then that is entirely your prerogative. I know what my eyes tell me.

 

[gnostic]

Actually I have the world's best evidence for them. I have a theory that explains human history and pre-history as well as many many other things.

Except you haven’t presented any evidence.

All you have done has been presenting your presuppositions (eg claims about the history of language, about the Tower of Babel, about the last nephilim, about the bible) and you are rationalising, trying to mix history and contents of the bible.

None of these claims are evidences; they are just a bunch of statements of what you believe in, but you haven’t backed up of your claims.

I can give you A+ for imagination, but a much lower mark on reality and big fat F for failing to produce a single evidence.

Evidence is more than just your supposition or you personal belief, because that’s all you have given us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it does matter what you believe according to the Bible. Of course you are free to accept whatever "truth" takes your fancy, but how sure are you that what you have been told is not the greatest con job in the world and you have fallen for it along with the majority of people on this planet in their haste to ditch religion?

What are your eyes really telling you?

You really believe that these are just accidental flukes of nature? If the one who made them is a trillion times more knowledge than today's scientists, I would trust him to tell me about the nature of living things, so much more than I would trust self appointed humans educated by other self appointed humans with egos the size of Texas.

Its easy to deny design when it isn't staring you in the face. If you think these are just fortunate accidents, then that is entirely your prerogative. I know what my eyes tell me.

What you call "design" anyone that has studied the sciences can see is merely an argument from ignorance on your part. And you demonstrated your utter ignorance in regards to the theory of evolution by dishonestly call the results of evolution "flukes of nature". Why do you continually make that amazingly ignorant error?

 

[sayak83]

Well, it does matter what you believe according to the Bible. Of course you are free to accept whatever "truth" takes your fancy, but how sure are you that what you have been told is not the greatest con job in the world and you have fallen for it along with the majority of people on this planet in their haste to ditch religion?

What are your eyes really telling you?

You really believe that these are just accidental flukes of nature? If the one who made them is a trillion times more knowledge than today's scientists, I would trust him to tell me about the nature of living things, so much more than I would trust self appointed humans educated by other self appointed humans with egos the size of Texas.

Its easy to deny design when it isn't staring you in the face. If you think these are just fortunate accidents, then that is entirely your prerogative. I know what my eyes tell me.

I see evolutionary processes like sexual selection (ducks, the colorful fish), camouflage by natural selection (leaf insect, zebra), eye evolution (owl), evolution of maternal care (panda) and predator-prey competition (tiger, poison frog).

 

[Deeje]

Of course I was personally designed and created by a god. The chances of me existing by chance are basically zero. The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small

What makes you think that I subscribe to the belief that we are all individually created by God? The Bible does not teach that.

God created the first pair of everything and left the reproduction up to them.

What you have said is exactly why we should value life...not every egg and sperm gets to make a living human or animal. The odds against us being here as the individuals we are, is infinitely small.....but the odds of you being a human by chance are absolute zero. There is not a single shred of substantive evidence that humans descended from any animal. We humans are unique on this planet....created that way. Science cannot disprove that.

Humans are the product of a gene pool going back many thousands of generations....but animals are so much better at choosing a mate by programmed instinct than we are by choice. Animals choose the best genes to hand on to their offspring....humans choose a mate that appeals to them in ways that don't hand on the best traits....in fact pregnancy often ends up being an unwanted side effect of their all important sex life....providing of course that the sex is between males and females..... which is the actual cause of reproduction.

In today's world the human gene pool is now a cesspool. God help the children of any coming generations if this present crop of youngsters are tomorrow's leaders and voters. The system is broken and human genetics have been contaminated with so many undesirable traits and a predisposition to serious diseases, handed down both genetically and environmentally, that it is impossible to see any improvement in any facet of human endeavor in the future if it was left in their hands.

What future do you see if things don't change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think that I subscribe to the belief that we are all individually created by God? The Bible does not teach that.

God created the first pair of everything and left the reproduction up to them.

What you have said is exactly why we should value life...not every egg and sperm gets to make a living human or animal. The odds against us being here as the individuals we are, is infinitely small.....but the odds of you being a human by chance are absolute zero. There is not a single shred of substantive evidence that humans descended from any animal. We humans are unique on this planet....created that way. Science cannot disprove that.

Humans are the product of a gene pool going back many thousands of generations....but animals are so much better at choosing a mate by programmed instinct than we are by choice. Animals choose the best genes to hand on to their offspring....humans choose a mate that appeals to them in ways that don't hand on the best traits....in fact pregnancy often ends up being an unwanted side effect of their all important sex life....providing of course that the sex is between males and females..... which is the actual cause of reproduction.

In today's world the human gene pool is now a cesspool. God help the children of any coming generations if this present crop of youngsters are tomorrow's leaders and voters. The system is broken and human genetics have been contaminated with so many undesirable traits and a predisposition to serious diseases, handed down both genetically and environmentally, that it is impossible to see any improvement in any facet of human endeavor in the future if it was left in their hands.

What future do you see if things don't change?

And you repeat your self defeating argument. Only creationists that are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest make the error of describing evolution as random.

Yes, the odds of us evolving randomly is absolutely zero. Luckily for us evolution is not random. You are ignoring natural selection which is not random at all.

 

[Deeje]

Except you haven’t presented any evidence.

Neither have you. Evidence has to be more than supposition and suggestion to be presented as fact.
Diagrams and computer graphics aren't quite the same as real substantiated proof. Science has proof for adaptation.....nothing more.

All you have done has been presenting your presuppositions

So have you evolutionists. There is no proof for anything you say...therefore you are holders of a belief system just the same as I am....you just can't admit it.

and you are rationalising, trying to mix history and contents of the bible.

History and the Bible mesh quite nicely actually. Evolutionists are experts at rationalizing themselves.

None of these claims are evidences; they are just a bunch of statements of what you believe in, but you haven’t backed up of your claims.

Ditto.

I can give you A+ for imagination, but a much lower mark on reality and big fat F for failing to produce a single evidence.

LOL....A+ for imagination....you have one from me. A big fat F for failing to produce a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution...you get one too. If you had any real proof for the validity of your theory then this forum would be redundant.

Evidence is more than just your supposition or you personal belief, because that’s all you have given us.

It is...but when you have two belief system with no actual proof beyond belief and faith.....neither has the high ground....sorry. Nice try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither have you. Evidence has to be more than supposition and suggestion to be presented as fact.
Diagrams and computer graphics aren't quite the same as real substantiated proof. Science has proof for adaptation.....nothing more.

So you don't understand the nature of evidence either.

Once again I invite you to discuss the nature of evidence. There is no "proof" in science.

So have you evolutionists. There is no proof for anything you say...therefore you are holders of a belief system just the same as I am....you just can't admit it.

Again, there is no "proof" in science, unless you mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We do have that. Science is evidence based, not "proof" based.

History and the Bible mesh quite nicely actually. Evolutionists are experts at rationalizing themselves.

No it doesn't. We know that there was no Exodus for example. Recent history is not bad, but I am betting an actual historian could find flaws in the Bible. But we are not discussing the historical claims of the Bible, we are discussing the mythical claims of the Bible.


Ditto.

LOL....A+ for imagination....you have one from me. A big fat F for failing to produce a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution...you get one too. If you had any real proof for the validity of your theory then this forum would be redundant.

Now you are either lying or demonstrating that you do not understand either evidence or macro-evolution. Macro-evolution has been observed. Creationists do not get to co-opt already existing terms. Macro-evolution is evolution at the species level and that has been observed.

It is...but when you have two belief system with no actual proof beyond belief and faith.....neither has the high ground....sorry. Nice try.

No, you have a belief system. We have knowledge and evidence, something lacking in your mere belief.