Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ArtieE]

What is so convincing about "the scientific method"?

It works. Medical science saved my life when doctors picked out my appendix. In that case what would be your life saving alternative to medical science?

Who said it was the best way to test everything? Scientists?

Can scientists test for God? Does the fact that evolutionary science denies God

Seriously Deeje get help! Evolution is just a theory as to how life evolved on planet earth and doesn't deny any of the thousands of gods.

I believe in the existence of a powerful, intelligent Creator.

That contributes absolutely zero to our understanding of how life began or why different organisms exist.

What if the Creator and those who inhabit his realm, are actually extra-terrestrials? Since that description simply means "not from the Earth", wouldn't it fit in with what we know of them from the Bible? You do concede that extra terrestrial life is possible? And since we have no way of testing their existence, we cannot state with any certainty what their capabilities are.

That is correct. For all I know the Raëlians are right.

The Bible is a powerful book that has been with us for thousands of years. Its words can still guide us in a way that will result in success in life.....in personal decisions and relationships....in handling many different situations where conflict and unnecessary stress can be avoided, by simply implementing its advice. Its a treasure trove of information, but too many people think its old and out of date...its advice never goes out of date. I see it as an instruction manual from our manufacturer.

"There are minor differences among all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English, the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible." Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?

The Bible answers all my questions and give me a reason to be here.....it also gives me a hope for the future. What does atheism do for you guys?

Nothing. But if you are serious when you are telling us that you need an old book to answer all your questions and give you a reason for being here and give you hope for the future it sounds like you are suffering from depression.

Edit: Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness' Bible, the New World Translation (NWT). | CARM.org
http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-the-new-world-translation-of-the-bible-credible/

 

[cladking]

Those are the very skulls I think should exist if evolution is true, and there they are. You claimed that they didn't exist, and yet there they are.

This is logically equivalent to assuming the conclusion. A theory must be derived from the evidence rather than the seeking the evidence to confirm theory.

Yes, the skulls might lead one to the hypothesis of gradual change in species because they do APPEAR to show small changes over known lengths of time. One could even say they don't fly in the face of the hypothesis that species change gradually. But they most assuredly do not prove that change in species is gradual for a host of reasons.

Without knowing the nature of the individual who represent each of these skulls or knowing how he lived and those around him lived we can't just arbitrarily say that he was a point along a gradual change. Some of the ancestors found in the past have been shown not to be ancestors at all. Some are probably dead ends in a failed branch caused by a local bottleneck or "local evolution" if you prefer.

Parts of skulls and bits of bones are simply not sufficient to positively identify anything except the individual who lost them. It is not logical to simply assume there are many more transitional fossils in between each of these and that if we had them all we could model the slow evolutionary change. We are interpreting the data to show just such change.

There's no dispute that humans had ancestors. There's no dispute that species change. The dispute involves the nature and causes of these changes.

 

[cladking]

I get that, but going by the scientific definition of "species", one of the most reliable barriers to use to determine species is the reproduction barrier - if two organisms are able to breed and produce fertile offspring, they are most likely the same species. That being the case, how can each individual member within a species be considered individually "not exactly the same species"? I asked you where you draw the line.

I don't draw such lines because this is semantics and taxonomies and I believe in neither.

I try to just remember that no two rabbits are the same and if we had two human skulls from the same grave they were different as well.

Why didn't you answer my question? If behaviour is a determining factor in species, are people whose behaviour is significantly different to the rest of the population a different species?

Behavior doesn't define species.

Behavior is what determines whether an individual lives or dies. Behavior is determined by consciosness in an interplay with an individual's genes.

Nature selects based on behavior so without understanding consciousness it's impossible to understand change in species.

These are not insignificant considerations and they lie at the heart not only of "evolution" but the very nature of being human. Without understanding the role of consciousness and behavior it's impossible (probably) to understand "religion" and "belief". It's impossible to understand "science".

Of course true understanding of such subjects will elude us in any case but I believe we can much better frame the questions and see our ignorance from this other perspective.

Also, this isn't semantics - it's categorization.

Yes. I understand this.

We use taxonomies to communicate. The problem is we begin to take a short hand method to communicate, "rabbit" as some sort of separate reality. "Rabbits" simply don't exist and what does exist is a massive universe of small rodents both living and dead that we call "rabbits" merely to facilitate communication.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This is logically equivalent to assuming the conclusion. A theory must be derived from the evidence rather than the seeking the evidence to confirm theory.

Yes, the skulls might lead one to the hypothesis of gradual change in species because they do APPEAR to show small changes over known lengths of time. One could even say they don't fly in the face of the hypothesis that species change gradually. But they most assuredly do not prove that change in species is gradual for a host of reasons.

The skulls can be used to test the hypothesis that humans share a common ancestor with other apes. The hypothesis predicts that there were species in the past who would have had a combination of ape and human features. That is exactly what these fossils have.

Without knowing the nature of the individual who represent each of these skulls or knowing how he lived and those around him lived we can't just arbitrarily say that he was a point along a gradual change. Some of the ancestors found in the past have been shown not to be ancestors at all. Some are probably dead ends in a failed branch caused by a local bottleneck or "local evolution" if you prefer.

I fully agree that you can't determine direct ancestor to descendant relationships from just looking at a fossil. That is why we call them transitional fossils instead of ancestors.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2]"--Wiki

Parts of skulls and bits of bones are simply not sufficient to positively identify anything except the individual who lost them. It is not logical to simply assume there are many more transitional fossils in between each of these and that if we had them all we could model the slow evolutionary change. We are interpreting the data to show just such change.

It is not logical to assume that there are not more transitional fossils between the ones we have.

There's no dispute that humans had ancestors. There's no dispute that species change. The dispute involves the nature and causes of these changes.

Those questions are answered by genetics.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What is so convincing about "the scientific method"?

250 years of discovery and knowledge.

Well....there is a slight concession of sorts there I guess. We are both sure that life began......but you (and science) have no idea how....I believe in the existence of a powerful, intelligent Creator.

Some of us don't find much use for inserting God into the gaps in our knowledge. As we learn more about nature the God of the Gaps just gets smaller and smaller and less relevant. Over the centuries there are have been innumerable supernatural explanations that have been replaced by natural explanations, but in all that time there has never been a case where a verified supernatural explanation has replaced a natural one.

The Creator is a life form that humans cannot have direct contact with, apart from telepathically. God can read our thoughts and encourages communication with him in what we call "prayer". It can be verbal or silent.

It seems as if we all have some kind of picture in our minds about what we think God is...but we simply don't know. It makes sense to me that God would provide communication about himself and his requirements for the only creatures he put on this planet that he made in his own image.

The Bible is a powerful book that has been with us for thousands of years. Its words can still guide us in a way that will result in success in life.....in personal decisions and relationships....in handling many different situations where conflict and unnecessary stress can be avoided, by simply implementing its advice. Its a treasure trove of information, but too many people think its old and out of date...its advice never goes out of date. I see it as an instruction manual from our manufacturer.

What if the one you picked, after close examination and scrutiny over a considerable period of time, you decided that you had found your truth? Why would you entertain other possibilities unless you were not sure of your first choice? I am sure. I have examined other possibilities and found them to be most unsatisfying in some way.

The Bible answers all my questions and give me a reason to be here.....it also gives me a hope for the future. What does atheism do for you guys?

Lots of claims. Zero evidence.

 

[cladking]

As we learn more about nature the God of the Gaps just gets smaller and smaller and less relevant. Over the centuries there are have been innumerable supernatural explanations that have been replaced by natural explanations, but in all that time there has never been a case where a verified supernatural explanation has replaced a natural one.

What isn't known outweighs what is by many many orders of magnitude.

 

[cladking]

The skulls can be used to test the hypothesis that humans share a common ancestor with other apes. The hypothesis predicts that there were species in the past who would have had a combination of ape and human features. That is exactly what these fossils have.

There are many other hypotheses that are supported by this evidence.

It is not logical to assume that there are not more transitional fossils between the ones we have.

And it is not logical to presume that even if we had fossilized remains of every individual who ever lived that there would be a gradual change represented.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What isn't known outweighs what is by many many orders of magnitude.

Sadly, you ignore what we do know.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There are many other hypotheses that are supported by this evidence.

Such as?

And it is not logical to presume that even if we had fossilized remains of every individual who ever lived that there would be a gradual change represented.

And it is not logical to think that the fossils we have are all the fossil species or all of the species that have ever existed. Unfortunately, your entire argument rests on the assumption that there are no other fossil species.

 

[gnostic]

You have shown no evidence for gradual change in species.

You and Deeje are being ridiculous whenever you say there there are “no evidence” to evolution.

There can be “no evidence” if there no skull, no remain, no fossil, no DNA, whatsoever, as it there are none.

To give you an example of no evidence, if there are no Sun, as in the Sun don’t exist, thus no star, no Solar System, and that we live in total darkness. Only then, can I say there is “no evidence” of the Sun.

And since the Sun does exist, because it appear every day, rise in the eastern horizon and set in the west, that we can observed it with our eyes or through telescope, then there are evidences of the sun, because the evidences are physical.

What we can agree with or disagree with is whether the Sun is natural or supernatural entity or force.

In ancient times, Hebrew and Christian astronomers thought it was the Sun actually orbited around stationary Earth (Geocentric planetary motion model), that the sky was a dome or vaulted roof (firmament, thus belief in flat earth), which sun, moon and stars moved inside the dome’s ceiling (Genesis 1, 2nd day and 4th day of Creation), and the Sun was controlled by God’s will (Joshua 10, god stopping the sun and moon during battle), and angels were responsible for the Sun’s daily movement across the sky, eg the sun is on cart or chariot being pulled by angels.

All these are myths, which modern astronomers have dispelled.

The sun exists, as physical evidence, but what people believe the sun to be, especially in religious myths, hence based on superstition.

There are evidences for evolution, but what you and Deeje are really arguing is not there are no evidences, but that evidences agree with your personal paradigm or model, not that of the majority of scientific community.

The only things you can really say is that you disagree with the way biologists or palaeontologists presented theory on evolution, not on their physical evidences (eg skulls, skeletal remains).

 

[Deeje]

You and Deeje are being ridiculous whenever you say there there are “no evidence” to evolution.

There is evidence for adaptation which science calls "micro-evolution"....but "macro-evolution" is an invention of human imagination. There is no real science to back up any of it. All you have is the interpretation of a very biased group of scientists.

 

[gnostic]

There is evidence for adaptation which science calls "micro-evolution"....but "macro-evolution" is an invention of human imagination. There is no real science to back up any of it. All you have is the interpretation of a very biased group of scientists.

Again, there are no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution.

Small changes occurred, but the culmination of small changes will result larger change when comparing to the original species.

But even if you were right...which you are not...none of your arguments against evolution, prove that the Creator creating life as it say in Genesis, or prove that some Intelligent Designer designing life. There are no evidences for God, so there is really no real connection between a deity and nature, other than from your superstitious belief in mythological or fairytale book.

 

[Deeje]

Again, there are no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution.

Small changes occurred, but the culmination of small changes will result larger change when comparing to the original species.

Better tell that to berkeley.edu/evolibrary then....it speaks about micro and macro evolution.

Welcome to Evolution 101!

"This site was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439)."

Seems legit....

But even if you were right...which you are not...none of your arguments against evolution, prove that the Creator creating life as it say in Genesis, or prove that some Intelligent Designer designing life. There are no evidences for God, so there is really no real connection between a deity and nature, other than from your superstitious belief in mythological or fairytale book.

There are so many evidences for the great Designer, but if you don't want to see them or can't see beyond your chosen evolutionary lenses....what can I say? Your mind is closed.

Only you can take off the glasses and try to see through a different lens....but you have to want to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is evidence for adaptation which science calls "micro-evolution"....but "macro-evolution" is an invention of human imagination. There is no real science to back up any of it. All you have is the interpretation of a very biased group of scientists.

Macro-evolution has been directly observed multiple times, as I have pointed out on many occasions, and trying to evoke a conspiracy to explain why people who know more about the subject don't agree with you doesn't make your case any stronger.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are so many evidences for the great Designer, but if you don't want to see them or can't see beyond your chosen evolutionary lenses....what can I say? Your mind is closed.

Only you can take off the glasses and try to see through a different lens....but you have to want to.

In other words, you already need to agree with the conclusion before you can believe there is evidence for it.

And yet you accuse scientists of bias? You just admitted that your entire worldview is informed from bias.

 

[Deeje]

In other words, you already need to agree with the conclusion before you can believe there is evidence for it.

And yet you accuse scientists of bias? You just admitted that your entire worldview is informed from bias.

Oh good grief! How many times have I said that about you guys already?

If science had not already reached their conclusions before evaluating and interpreting their evidence, they could never arrive at their findings. (not with a straight face anyway)

Four legged furry animals morphing into whales.....seriously.

Here he is...the very first whale...

or is it this?

Depends on the whim of the artist apparently because no one knows what this creature really looked like.
What intelligent person could mistake this for a relative of a whale? Apparently they got the idea from an ear bone.

What about horses?

Evolutionists...."Oh look this is how horses evolved from that small one into the big one...."

ID....."Oh look, here are several species of horses who all appear to be.....horses."

What about man?

The three in the middle are figments of science's imagination. There are no half ape-half humans.

Apes are apes.....humans are humans. Same basic framework, same designer, same materials. Individually created.

All interpretation in science comes from pre-conceived ideas. Somehow, you never seem to notice how completely ridiculous the suggestions are.

Are you sure someone isn't making a goose out of you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh good grief! How many times have I said that about you guys already?

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still not true. Yet you've just blatantly admitted it about yourself.

If science had not already reached their conclusions before evaluating and interpreting their evidence, they could never arrive at their findings. (not with a straight face anyway)

Again, false. Science only works the other way around. Note the use of the word "works". See, science is results-based, which is why we are able to use our knowledge of physics to put a probe on Mars, why you're able to successfully send complex messages through electromagnetic signals, and why we're able to predict the evolution of organisms in advance. If science was based on pre-conceptions, this simply wouldn't work.

Four legged furry animals morphing into whales.....seriously.

Here he is...the very first whale...

or is it this?

Depends on the whim of the artist apparently because no one knows what this creature really looked like.
What intelligent person could mistake this for a relative of a whale? Apparently they got the idea from an ear bone.

What about horses?

Evolutionists...."Oh look this is how horses evolved from that small one into the big one...."

ID....."Oh look, here are several species of horses who all appear to be.....horses."

What about man?

The three in the middle are figments of science's imagination. There are no half ape-half humans.

Apes are apes.....humans are humans. Same basic framework, same designer, same materials. Individually created.

All interpretation in science comes from pre-conceived ideas. Somehow, you never seem to notice how completely ridiculous the suggestions are.

Are you sure someone isn't making a goose out of you?

So the only argument you actually have against evolution is your personal incredulity, despite knowing little to nothing about even the basics of evolution or what it claims?

This is your whole argument:

"Really, though?"

And the answer is simple:

"Yes, because it's what every single piece of available evidence indicates, and your inability to look up or accept this evidence is not a contradiction of its validity."

See, do you honestly believe that a scientist intent on deceiving people (for no discernible reason or benefit whatsoever) "made up" the whole idea of whales evolving from land animals? Just as you suggest, at first consideration it seems absurd - so why would anyone make up something that seems so difficult to believe? Simple answer: because it's what the evidence suggests. You never heard the Mark Twain quote "Truth is stranger than fiction"? Well, that applies in this particular case.

 

[Deeje]

So the only argument you actually have against evolution is your personal credulity, despite knowing little to nothing about even the basics of evolution or what it claims?

I know what it claims and I know how it arrives at its conclusions....can you show me the process of macro-evolution without resorting to belief or faith?

Can you show us "speciation" that doesn't simply occur within a specific taxa? All speciation produces is variety within the same family. We have been through this many times already.

Can you show me how four legged furry creatures became whales without needing to use suggestion? Or to plug the gaps with conjecture or supposition? If evolution is none of those things, it should be easy.

This is your whole argument:

Yes it is. And I fail to see how intelligent, scientifically minded people can make those kinds of suggestions and not feel like dills for even suggesting it. Your fantasy is way more imaginative than the one you think we have.

"Really, though?"

And the answer is simple:

"Yes, because it's what every single piece of available evidence indicates, and your inability to look up or accept this evidence is not a contradiction of its validity."

What "available evidence" is there for Pakicetus becoming a whale? Show us what science really has.

Show us. No links...just plain English, demonstrate how science came to this conclusion.

 

[Deeje]

See, do you honestly believe that a scientist intent on deceiving people (for no discernible reason or benefit whatsoever) "made up" the whole idea of whales evolving from land animals? Just as you suggest, at first consideration it seems absurd - so why would anyone make up something that seems so difficult to believe? Simple answer: because it's what the evidence suggests. You never heard the Mark Twain quote "Truth is stranger than fiction"? Well, that applies in this particular case.

"so why would anyone make up something that seems so difficult to believe?"

I could answer this but you wouldn't believe it.

I think that this is a particular kind of 'blindness' that affects all who can swallow what science dishes up, no matter how bad it smells. Scientists seem to be as taken in as their students. Blind guides is what Jesus called those who are misled, who then go on to mislead others.

Mark Twain was right about the truth being stranger than fiction...but first you have to establish what is fiction....and what is truth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I know what it claims and I know how it arrives at its conclusions....

False. You have repeatedly claimed that evolutionary theory says that organisms evolve outside of taxa - that isn't true. You have repeatedly claimed that macro-evolution hasn't been observed - that isn't true. You've repeatedly asserted that "adaptation is not evolution" - that isn't true. You have consistently and repeatedly proclaimed falsehoods and misunderstanding about the very basics of what evolutionary theory actually is and says. Regardless of whether or not you believe evolution, this is a very, very bad look for you.

can you show me the process of macro-evolution without resorting to belief or faith?

I've posted the links to you repeatedly.

Can you show us "speciation" that doesn't simply occur within a specific taxa? All speciation produces is variety within the same family. We have been through this many times already.

Speciation IS macro-evolution. No evolution occurs "outside" of the taxa.

Can you show me how four legged furry creatures became whales without needing to use suggestion? Or to plug the gaps with conjecture or supposition? If evolution is none of those things, it should be easy.

That's like asking me to prove the battle of Delaware happened without the use of suggestion. What exactly are you expecting? A video of the life of every single whale ancestor? Here's what we have:

1) A sequence of fossils throughout the record in close geographical location showing distinct morphological similarities in a specific sequence indicating hereditary transition.
2) Knowledge of a natural process that results in allele frequency changes over time that can produce morphological changes in living populations of organism.
3) DNA and dating techniques that indicate relationships between all forms of life deviating from a common ancestor.

Consider these facts, and wonder what the natural conclusion is.

Yes it is.

So you admit that your argument is a vacuous argument from personal incredulity?

And I fail to see how intelligent, scientifically minded people can make those kinds of suggestions and not feel like dills for even suggesting it. Your fantasy is way more imaginative than the one you think we have.

One word: evidence.

What "available evidence" is there for Pakicetus becoming a whale? Show us what science really has.

The evolution of whales
Whale Evolution | Australia Maritime Museum
How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian

Show us. No links...just plain English, demonstrate how science came to this conclusion.

So you want me - a non-biologist - explain to you, without links, what all the evidence is for whale evolution?

See the above list: we have transitional fossils indicating physiological links, the dating of these fossils that puts them in a specific sequence that falls perfectly in line with evolutionary predictions, and the DNA of the extant descendant species that corroborates this.

Not that it matters what I, or anyone else, tells you. You've already made up your mind.