Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ImmortalFlame]

"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.

Which is what science does, better than religion. Hence why you're currently sending this message to me using a computer and not a stone tablet.

Are you going to admit to lying yet, or am I going to have to keep reminding everyone of the lie you told?

 

[cladking]

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

If you can't put it in your own words then you don't understand it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you can't put it in your own words then you don't understand it.

I can put it in my own words (and actually did in the post the quoted) and do understand it, but it's a complex process involving drawing evidence from numerous different scientific fields, and so explaining it without relevant links or any expert knowledge is needlessly difficult.

Please don't patronize me.

 

[cladking]

Please don't patronize me.

I certainly didn't intend the statement as being in any way patronizing. I find your arguments to be generally quite sound but somewhat irrelevant to what causes these changes.

It does seem though that each ToE proponent is merely restating the conclusions of the theory rather than showing how any experiment, test, or data support the concept of gradual change and nothing else.

You asked what other theory could exist but there are some mentioned right in this thread. For all we know humans are a science experiment being run by aliens and they seeded the earth with fossils to fool us into believing something. From the evidence we can't even be certain exactly what we were supposed to believe.
That species change has always been obvious but the mechanism is being presumed while the presumptions lack any substantial evidence or evben logic. The presumptions are based on what we can observe in the here and now and don't consider the simple facts that life is consciousness, behavior is individual, changes in life are sudden, or even that every new species we have observed arose suddenly. The presumptions have as their premises that we possess virtually complete knowledge and understanding of life therefore understanding change in life should be as easy as viewing the evidence.

Science, real science, doesn't work this way.

We know virtually nothing about anything and change in species is high on the list.

If you know anything that excludes a Creator, sudden change, or alien intervention, or any other possible explanation then please put it in your own words and then provide links.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you can't put it in your own words then you don't understand it.

I never said those things. You have me confused with someone else.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It does seem though that each ToE proponent is merely restating the conclusions of the theory rather than showing how any experiment, test, or data support the concept of gradual change and nothing else.

I already gave you that evidence.

You asked what other theory could exist but there are some mentioned right in this thread. For all we know humans are a science experiment being run by aliens and they seeded the earth with fossils to fool us into believing something. From the evidence we can't even be certain exactly what we were supposed to believe.

If this is the silliness that you have to resort to in order to ignore the evidence, then why even continue with a discussion?

That species change has always been obvious but the mechanism is being presumed while the presumptions lack any substantial evidence or evben logic. The presumptions are based on what we can observe in the here and now and don't consider the simple facts that life is consciousness, behavior is individual, changes in life are sudden, or even that every new species we have observed arose suddenly. The presumptions have as their premises that we possess virtually complete knowledge and understanding of life therefore understanding change in life should be as easy as viewing the evidence.

What evidence do you have that change is sudden?

I would be more than happy to discuss the evidence for random mutations being responsible for the DNA differences between species, but given your predilection for invoking aliens who plant fake evidence, what would be the point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Adaptation is evolution.

Again, independent groups of scientists operating in many different fields of science completely unrelated to other independent groups of scientists operating in many different fields of science all over the world, over the course of 150+ years have been accumulating data that all points to the reality of evolution. Your assertion about bias and conspiracy is absurd and after all this time you have yet to back it up with anything other than bald assertion. The scientific method has self-correction built into it. It is designed to weed out bias and personal opinion.

And again, you've been shown many examples of what you refer to as "macro-evolution" over and over again on these threads. It's also been pointed out to you that "macro-evolution" is the same thing as "micro-evolution" with the only real difference between the time periods involved. "Macro-evolution" is just a lot of "micro-evolution" added up over time. So it's a bit disingenuous on your part to assert that no evidence exists.

 

[cladking]

What evidence do you have that change is sudden?

ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE.

If you know of any change in life that isn't sudden than say it.

I'll ask for a link if I don't believe you.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE.

Like what?

 

[cladking]

Like what?

Life, death, infection, etc, etc, etc. ...

 

[gnostic]

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....

Yes, the bible is powerful book, but it has proven to be wrong on number of verses regarding to the description of nature.

For instance in the Genesis creation’s 2nd day:

6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

NRSV described the sky (or heavens) as a “dome”, while KJV called it “firmament”, or the Hebrew transliteration is rapia, and this rapia (firmament) can be likened to an upside-down bowl.
And everything between the Earth and dome is the “sky”.

Meaning the waters above is outside of the rapia.

In Psalms 104:2, described the sky as a “tent”, with the Earth below.

The rapia is not only describing the sky, but also the atmosphere, which would include clouds.

And the clouds move on chariots (Psalms 104:3). So clouds move in the same place as the sun, moon and stars, within the rapia or dome, not outside the dome.

And then on the 4th day, Genesis narrated the creation of sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:14-18), where it described these being created “inside” the rapia (firmament), so below the “waters above”:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,

Meaning everything that we can see in the sky - clouds, birds, sun, moon and stars are contained within the dome - within the atmosphere.

Whether you call the sky dome, roof, vault, tent or firmament (rapia), they all implied the Earth is flat, not (near) spherical in shape.

The flat Earth is further implied by viewing there being ends of Earth, hence the edges, like a flat disk:

10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.

And Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Old Testament (eg Joshua 10), it always indicate the sun moving across the sky, and the motions of the planets and stars, never the motion of Earth’s own rotations.

The very idea that the sun follow the same course across the sky as the moon, is indication of belief in geocentric model, a stationary Earth, but sun, planets, moon and stars moving with Earth at its centre, is geocentric.

All that Old Testament described are scientically wrong.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, the bible is powerful book, but it has proven to be wrong on number of verses regarding to the description of nature.

I guess that depends upon your interpretation of what was written. Don't forget that humans need education. God created us with an unlimited mental capacity for knowledge, and with a storage system even today's tech giants would envy. But at birth, we are an empty storage unit, waiting for input. We teach basics to infants first.

Had things panned out as God intended, man's education would have been way more advanced than it is now.
Severing their relationship with God slowed down their progress as well as their education. Do you understand that without the fall, there would have been no need for a Bible.....no need for sin....no need for laws....we have only limited knowledge because of the limited capacity that came with imperfection?

NRSV described the sky (or heavens) as a “dome”, while KJV called it “firmament”, or the Hebrew transliteration is rapia, and this rapia (firmament) can be likened to an upside-down bowl.
And everything between the Earth and dome is the “sky”.

Yes, that is how things appeared to earthbound humans.To indicate otherwise without the capacity to confirm anything would have been frustrating, don't you think? There is a time for everything, according to the Bible.

Meaning the waters above is outside of the rapia.

Yes, according to Genesis there was a water canopy surrounding the earth, held in place by "the word of God" not by natural forces. This water, along with underground springs, was used to flood the earth in Noah's day.

The apostle Peter wrote..."For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people" (2 Peter 3:5-7)

Perhaps the water subsided when God somehow drew the waters up into the magnetic poles and suspended them as ice? One of the big fears about global warming is that if the polar ice melts, the earth will again be flooded. Its already happening in some places. Something to think about.

In Psalms 104:2, described the sky as a “tent”, with the Earth below.

The rapia is not only describing the sky, but also the atmosphere, which would include clouds.

And the clouds move on chariots (Psalms 104:3). So clouds move in the same place as the sun, moon and stars, within the rapia or dome, not outside the dome.

From an earthly standpoint, this is what was assumed. They did not come to accurate knowledge about these things until the invention of telescopes and a greater sense of their place in the big scheme of things.

And then on the 4th day, Genesis narrated the creation of sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:14-18), where it described these being created “inside” the rapia (firmament), so below the “waters above”:

OK, now round all that up and ask yourself what was viewed from an earth-bound perspective, with no knowledge of science? What was the point of revealing technical information that humans were not going to have the capacity to process, for thousands of years? God reveals, or clarifies things at the right time.

Meaning everything that we can see in the sky - clouds, birds, sun, moon and stars are contained within the dome - within the atmosphere.

Whether you call the sky dome, roof, vault, tent or firmament (rapia), they all implied the Earth is flat, not (near) spherical in shape.

The word used in Isaiah can mean a sphere. Yet what would that matter to ancient humans? For all intents and purposes the earth is flat when viewed from a human perspective. Was that some kind of misuse of knowledge or simply in keeping with an infant's capacity for it? Do you teach a baby quantum physics?

The flat Earth is further implied by viewing there being ends of Earth, hence the edges, like a flat disk:

Again, what does it matter to the ancients to whom it was written? Don't we know more now? Hasn't knowledge been trickling down in small doses over a very long period of time to educate us more fully as we developed the capacity and instruments to confirm it? Don't we still use the phrase "to the ends of the earth" metaphorically?

Most of what man has learned about the earth and the universe is only a couple of centuries old. The newer the information, the more enlightening it becomes and the more exciting it gets. Hubble has sent back some amazing images!

And Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Old Testament (eg Joshua 10), it always indicate the sun moving across the sky, and the motions of the planets and stars, never the motion of Earth’s own rotations.

Again, what did it matter to the ancients in their daily grind? They got up with sun and went to bed when it did. The motion of the planets was a long way off when the scriptures were written. It would not have mattered to them anyway.

The very idea that the sun follow the same course across the sky as the moon, is indication of belief in geocentric model, a stationary Earth, but sun, planets, moon and stars moving with Earth at its centre, is geocentric.

All that Old Testament described are scientically wrong.

And didn't the Church come to grief when Galileo dared to challenge their belief? Or should I say didn't Galileo come to grief for disagreeing with the church?

There was no point in educating humans beyond their capacity to learn. That capacity has definitely increased, but not nearly as much as it would have without the hindrance of sin. That is how I see it.

 

[ecco]

But at birth, we are an empty storage unit, waiting for input. We teach basics to infants first.

Well, you got that right. That's why every religion wants its beliefs indoctrinated into children as early as possible. Teach an infant/toddler that god is real and that god created everything and, years later, you have people who argue against things like evolution.

If the shoe fits...

 

[Deeje]

Well, you got that right. That's why every religion wants its beliefs indoctrinated into children as early as possible. Teach an infant/toddler that god is real and that god created everything and, years later, you have people who argue against things like evolution.

If the shoe fits...

It sure would help if science had something more substantive than educated guesswork to put in its place.....don't you think?

Why do you assume that a Creator cannot exist? Does science know everything? Can it really 'test' for everything? Or does it just pretend to until someone asks them to produce the proof.....? Then watch them go ballistic.....frustrated because they cannot produce a single piece of evidence that supports their theory that isn't based on guesswork, supposition and suggestion. That's a poor substitute for actual proof IMO. You really demand no more real evidence than we do.

So "if the shoe fits" indeed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sure would help if science had something more substantive than educated guesswork to put in its place.....don't you think?

Why do you assume that a Creator cannot exist? Does science know everything? Can it really 'test' for everything? Or does it just pretend to until someone asks them to produce the proof.....? Then watch them go ballistic.....frustrated because they cannot produce a single piece of evidence that supports their theory that isn't based on guesswork, supposition and suggestion. That's a poor substitute for actual proof IMO. You really demand no more real evidence than we do.

So "if the shoe fits" indeed.

What makes you think that atheists assume that a creator cannot exist? That is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Tell me, why do you assume that leprechauns cannot exist?

And no theory can be based upon guesswork. A scientific theory is always evidence based. You should learn what is and what is not evidence so that you do not keep making the same error.

 

[ecco]

It sure would help if science had something more substantive than educated guesswork to put in its place.....don't you think?

Just because you cannot accept TOE because of your deeply ingrained religious beliefs, doesn't mean TOE is based on guesswork.

Why do you assume that a Creator cannot exist?

Which creator are you referring to?

Do you assume psychic snowflakes exist?

Does science know everything? Can it really 'test' for everything?

No and no. Have you ever heard any scientist say "science knows everything"?

Or does it just pretend to until someone asks them to produce the proof.....? Then watch them go ballistic.....frustrated because they cannot produce a single piece of evidence that supports their theory that isn't based on guesswork, supposition and suggestion.

Please give an example of a scientist going ballistic when asked for evidence supporting their views. Scientists constantly have to provide evidence for their work. When scientists come up with ideas and concepts they have to show evidence supporting it. That's how science works.

That's a poor substitute for actual proof IMO.

No, a preponderance of evidence, especially if it comes from many different branches of science is an excellent substitute for "proof". You have been told many times that, outside of mathematics, science does not deal in "proof".

You really demand no more real evidence than we do.

What evidence do you have to support your religious views? Stories that were handed down orally long before they were written down 3000 years ago? Stories that provided simplistic answers to ignorant people about the origins of the universe?


Stories that were cobbled together into a book a some 18 centuries ago? Stories that were all written long after the supposed events? Stories that have no corroboration in any contemporaneous writings?


You really don't require any evidence for your beliefs. Quite the opposite, you stand by your beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Deeje]

Just because you cannot accept TOE because of your deeply ingrained religious beliefs, doesn't mean TOE is based on guesswork.

Well, actually my religious beliefs only confirm what my common sense tells me...."nothing comes from nothing", and "all life comes from pre-existing life". Science knows this but denies it in this particular field of study.

I guess they want us all to just skip the most important part.....in order for life to evolve, don't you first need to have life begin? So where did life come from? Science tells me that it has to come from pre-existing life, so I did the math....something or 'someone' "alive" must have given rise to the life that science studies. That's just logical...isn't it?

Which creator are you referring to?

The one who caused all that science studies. If life was put here by 'someone', then they obviously had a purpose in doing so. What purpose can mindless evolution give me?

Do you assume psychic snowflakes exist?

Should I? Do you?

Can you account for the fact that every snowflake is different? How long did it take humans to discover that? I imagine a lot more surprises as we keep gaining knowledge....real knowledge, not mere assumptions. Exploration of nature has so much more in store I feel.

Have you ever heard any scientist say "science knows everything"?

They don't come right out and say....but they sure imply it....especially with regard to the ToE.

Please give an example of a scientist going ballistic when asked for evidence supporting their views. Scientists constantly have to provide evidence for their work. When scientists come up with ideas and concepts they have to show evidence supporting it. That's how science works.

I have been on the receiving end of many tirades because of the frustration of science buffs not being able to provide real substantive evidence. You don't seem to realize that if there was proof of evolution, no one could dispute it. Lots of people dispute it...even many scientists. It is unproven and unprovable...yet here you are carrying on like a child....psychic snowflakes" and all....

No, a preponderance of evidence, especially if it comes from many different branches of science is an excellent substitute for "proof". You have been told many times that, outside of mathematics, science does not deal in "proof".

I have heard scientists like Dawkins tell us that evolution is a fact. That is a lie according to what you said. Do scientists lie? Apparently they do.
There are no facts...there are only assumptions dressed up to look like facts....taught to children as facts, and yet atheists accuse us of indoctrination? Go figure....

What evidence do you have to support your religious views? Stories that were handed down orally long before they were written down 3000 years ago? Stories that provided simplistic answers to ignorant people about the origins of the universe?

If the Creator was around creating long before anything was written down by man, then I would expect that the information he left us would not be something that just appeared in the last couple of centuries.

Simplistic answers were all that ancient people needed. They did not have the knowledge or the capacity or the instruments to test any ideas, so why bother explaining more until they reached a point where they did? You teach infants the basics first, and then you build a knowledge base. That is what God has done with humans.How long has it taken us to get this far and we have only barely scratched the surface.....?

Stories that have no corroboration in any contemporaneous writings?

Oh but they do. The Bible has many references to historical people and places....able to be verified. If it was a work of fiction, why include real people and places?

You really don't require any evidence for your beliefs. Quite the opposite, you stand by your beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You just don't get it do you? I have all the evidence I need to tell me that Intelligent Design is clearly visible in all that God has made. Its the very same evidence that you have...except that we have interpreted it to be more logical and with purpose for all that exists, rather than an endless series of fortunate accidents. I stand by the logic of my beliefs because there seems to be no logic in your scenario.

You have your lens and so do I.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, actually my religious beliefs only confirm what my common sense tells me...."nothing comes from nothing"

Why is there something rather than nothing?

and "all life comes from pre-existing life".

What pre-existing life did your god come from? Or isn't he alive?

The one who caused all that science studies. If life was put here by 'someone', then they obviously had a purpose in doing so. What purpose can mindless evolution give me?

Why would you need to be given a purpose? Who gave your god his purpose?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Don't forget that humans need education. God created us with an unlimited mental capacity for knowledge, and with a storage system even today's tech giants would envy. But at birth, we are an empty storage unit, waiting for input. We teach basics to infants first.

God disputed. And fortunately we are in charge rather than some supposed entity - and if you know anything about how we develop, we are not just empty storage units - perhaps in your case though ......

 

[ecco]

Well, actually my religious beliefs only confirm what my common sense tells me...."nothing comes from nothing",

Our ancestors "common sense" led them to believe the earth was flat.
Our ancestors "common sense" led them to believe the earth was the center of the universe.

Does your "common sense" lead you to an understanding of entangled particles?
Does your "common sense" lead you to an understanding of wave particle duality?

...and "all life comes from pre-existing life". ... Science tells me that it has to come from pre-existing life,

No, science hasn't told anyone that for 150 years. Perhaps you haven't heard of the term abiogenesis?

That's just logical...isn't it?

It is just as logical as the earth being flat in the center of the universe. If you cannot keep up with the complexities of even 20th Century science, do not blame the scientists.



Please be so good as to write an all encompassing definition of "life". Don't just cut and paste - use your own words.