Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

Some complex behavior can be instinctive but before it was instinctive in any individual it had to be learned by its ancestors.

 

[ecco]

Most (scientists), like the general public, believe in god. They just don't share your views.

LOL...why do you suppose they don't share their views? Fear of ridicule? Fear of losing credibility?

Reading comprehension problems? I didn't say they don't share their views? I said god-believing scientists don't share your views. It's a common phrase meaning their views about religion and god are not the same as your.

 

[cladking]

The real question is in what way does DNA guide what you call complex behavior since it is DNA that is inherited. You could certainly argue that the ability to learn behaviors and beliefs is based in DNA, but the individual learned behaviors and beliefs are not based on DNA. You need some way of couching your ideas within the concepts of selection in order for them to impact a population within a species.

What I'm arguing here is that behavior is based in the genes.

If a rabbit prefers daffodils to daisies then when one becomes poisonous or non-existent then that individual is at greatly increased odds of death. Genes determine whether it goes to the forest edge for one flower or the open areas for the other. If something kills everything exposed then the animal died as a result of its behavior, as a result of its genes.

Species change only in population bottlenecks and they change because almost every "normal" individual with "normal" genes was killed because of its behavior. The survivors by definition are different and will breed a different species.

Just because we can force species change in the lab by killing those with different tolerances for stressors doesn't mean that this is the way nature causes change.

From your perspective there's nothing in the story of Noah except superstition. From the perspective of what I'm saying is the reality there are lessons in this story and, perhaps, some grain of truth that has been confused. "Right" behavior determines change in species. See Judges 7.

Within evolution it is not about the survival of an individual. It is about the survival of a lineage. In other words, it isn't how long you live but how many grandchildren you have. If that behavior isn't heritable then it doesn't matter.

ONLY individuals have off spring and only adults that aren't too old.

And only living individuals except in the case of males.

 

[metis]

That's a very important observation that everyone should keep in mind when they interact with @Deeje .....she explained to me that she cannot ever change her mind or even compromise a little bit on the creation/evolution issue, because if she were to do that her JW friends and family would treat her "like a piece of garbage" and her life would lose all meaning.

The funny thing is, in a way I understand that. I obviously don't agree with that sort of mindset and belief system, but I do understand it. Her JW faith, and her JW friends and family provide her emotional support and comfort, a sense of belonging, and a sense of meaning and purpose to her life. But because the JW's have drawn a line in the sand regarding evolution, declared it to be absolutely off-limits, and basically threaten any member who compromises on it with expulsion and social/emotional ruin, it's simply a subject for which reasonable discussion with her isn't possible.

What I don't understand are all the people who line up to try and explain and/or debate science with her, and in doing so appeal to scientific sources. Given the above, we all should recognize those efforts as doomed to fail from the start. Like I keep saying (because I think it's a very apt analogy), trying to explain science to a JW is like offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew. In both cases, the intended audience is fundamentally ideologically opposed to what you're offering. Yet people spend hours and hours and hours trying to explain basic science concepts (e.g., what "theory" means) to her.

Why? Like I said earlier, I feel like I'm watching the same people line up day after day to play a rigged carnival game, even though they know it's rigged. I just don't get it.

I hear ya, which is why I often go for weeks without corresponding with her.

But what does keep me interested is that there can be people on the margin whom are not sure about where they may stand, with many of them having false beliefs about the ToE actually is.

I know this from long personal experience since I taught an into to anthro course for 30 years, and so many of my students came in with all sorts of falsehoods that they had been told to believe, such as if one "believes" in evolution then they cannot believe in the Bible. I then would spend time on showing them that this really isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What I'm arguing here is that behavior is based in the genes.

All behavior? Some behavior?

Do you think there is a Christian gene that makes people be Christians? A Hindu gene?

Genes determine whether it goes to the forest edge for one flower or the open areas for the other.

Is there a peer reviewed article where these genes are discussed? What evidence do you have that this behavior is based on genes?

From your perspective there's nothing in the story of Noah except superstition. From the perspective of what I'm saying is the reality there are lessons in this story and, perhaps, some grain of truth that has been confused. "Right" behavior determines change in species. See Judges 10.

It is really strange when people tell me what my perspective on things is.

My actual perspective is that the Noah story is a completely valid allegory that the Biblical authors were using to describe their views on the relationship between God and his people. It is quite apparent that they borrowed some of the stories from the cultures around them, but there is nothing wrong with that. Humans telling stories to illustrate ideas has a long history, and I wouldn't call it superstition.

ONLY individuals have off spring and only adults that aren't too old.

And only living individuals except in the case of males.

If offspring don't have offspring of their own then your DNA disappears from the population. Therefore, selection operates on DNA that is successfully passed down, not on DNA that simply allows an individual to live longer. If a deer lives to be 50 years old but has no offspring, then that DNA disappears from the species.

 

[ecco]

No. But you're showing your ignorance of science by implying that science sets out to "prove". It doesn't. You've been told that repeatedly. Yet you continue to assert ToE is wrong because it hasn't been proved. You are also showing the high level of your indoctrination.

It's not about "everyone" believing. It's about overwhelming scientific evidence

Sometimes I don't believe what I am reading in these responses....

The ToE is not proven and not provable.....yet it must be right? Science can't prove a thing they claim...and you think I'm indoctrinated?

sheesh.Also explain why you believe

What is 'overwhelming' is the volume, not the content.

The "evidence" is skewed toward evolution by the very biased interpretation given to it by those who have an agenda to uphold. Its only 'overwhelming' to those who swallow the suggestions and treat them as facts. The actual evidence, which is not proof (as you all keep telling me) says something very different to me. Interpretation is everything.

I'll skip explaining again about scientific proof and overwhelming evidence. Apparently you do not understand common English.

So, moving on... Please explain what agenda you believe scientists need to uphold.

 

[ecco]

From High School to my twenties I tried to study evolution and understand how incredible complexities in living organisms that demonstrate intelligent planning, could possibly be the result of random chance. Red flags went up everywhere, but going back to a YEC scenario was just as ridiculous. So I ditched both and just studied the Bible. I went into deep study for two years before I decided that what JW's teach is the most reasonable middle ground. I didn't have to give up science as far as it can provide proof for its conclusions, and I didn't have to lose God or the Bible to accept that there was a grand Creator with a grand purpose to it all.

So, before you became a JW, you were a YEC for 15-18 years. You spent a few years where you "tried to study evolution and understand how incredible complexities in living organisms that demonstrate intelligent planning, could possibly be the result of random chance."

Trying to accept ToE with a YEC background is almost impossible. The indoctrination you received in your formative years was far too much to overcome.

 

[ecco]

What "accumulated knowledge" did you mean?...
Common English, like any other language requires definitions....you didn't provide one.

That you don't understand the phrase "accumulated knowledge" reflects poorly on your (home schooled?) education.

If you need definitions for simple phrases, you should be in remedial school, not a forum.

 

[ecco]

You didn't comment on the greater number killed in the name of political agendas. At least the numbers killed in Bible times were in hand to hand combat...led by their own kings.

Do you really believe the warring factions in the OT had no religious agenda?
Do you really believe the Crusadors had no religious agenda?
Do you really believe the wars between Protestants and Catholics had no religious agenda?

Your knowledge of history is not good.

 

[ecco]

To be sure there have been some advances in many areas of medicine, but then we would expect that as science grew in knowledge, would we not? What we don't expect in this day and age is to see people suffer needlessly until they take their dying breath. Tens of thousands every year are robbed of their final months by chemical poisoning they call chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy and related cancer treatments extend peoples lives. In many cases for decades with no ongoing ill effects from the treatments. I know this from experience with several very close family members.

One asked the doctor about "quality of life" if they received cancer treatment. The doctor responded by asking what the "quality of life" would be if they did not get treatment and died?



Nevertheless, no one needs to accept treatment for cancer if they don't want it. Many terminally ill do stop and opt for pain meds for their remaining time.

From what I have read, JWs accept medical treatments with the exception of blood transfusions, so I really don't know what horse you are riding with your constant griping about the medical profession.

 

[ecco]

If god turned off his omniscience when creating A&E, he chose to be willfully ignorant.
ETA: Remember, he had almost all of eternity to ponder his creation before he created A&E.

Following with my emphasis

He did not turn off anything, but left the humans to make their own choices...

But assuming that God made mistakes is to sell him short. He knew exactly from the beginning, how it will end.

That is exactly my point. When he created Adam & Eve, he knew exactly that they would disobey him. He intentionally set them up to fail.

 

[ecco]

Belief in God or global warming hardly precludes someone from making an advance in medicine.

For most of history, religions did not favor scientific progress. Even today many are against it. Illnesses and cures were "god's will".

 

[ecco]

You aren't being honest about how science organizes species.

OMG! Science constantly changes its mind about everything. Science is not to be believed.






Yes, the above is sarcasm.

 

[ecco]

If god turned off his omniscience when creating A&E, he chose to be willfully ignorant. Remember, he had almost all of eternity to ponder his creation before he created A&E.

You make this out to be a bad thing! Why wouldn't a loving Father show respect and honor to His sentient creatures, both angelic and human, by granting them freedom and privacy in their thoughts?

The comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Deeje had stated that he believes that god is omniscient.

If god is omniscient, he knew long before he created Adam & Eve, that they would disobey him. It's not about granting privacy. It's about absolute foreknowledge.

 

[cladking]

All behavior? Some behavior?

Do you think there is a Christian gene that makes people be Christians? A Hindu gene?

Yes. Kindda.

I think I have the gene but it isn't expressed or isn't dominant.

Is there a peer reviewed article where these genes are discussed? What evidence do you have that this behavior is based on genes?

This is the only thing observed.

Man invented agriculture by imposing an artificial bottleneck; he selected tamer animals.

It is really strange when people tell me what my perspective on things is.

My actual perspective is that the Noah story is a completely valid allegory that the Biblical authors were using to describe their views on the relationship between God and his people. It is quite apparent that they borrowed some of the stories from the cultures around them, but there is nothing wrong with that. Humans telling stories to illustrate ideas has a long history, and I wouldn't call it superstition.

No harm intended.

I believe much of the ancient writing had its origins in a different kind of language that can't be translated. These stories are simply attempts to translate them. The admonition not to change words is because there would be even more drift in meaning. As is, some of the original meaning in the original language can be deduced.

 

[Deeje]

All science is taught as tentative except science which is directly observed. All science is taught the same way.

You and I both know that the likes of Dawkins and Coyne never teach evolution to students on a "tentative" basis. Watch any of their lectures to students and you will see that evolution is taught as if it is beyond question. When something is presented as "beyond question"...then important questions are never asked. And that is the problem. If you dare to question, the derision and ridicule follow....
....who can survive in that environment for long?

That depends entirely on the strength of the evidence and logic you presented in relation to the claim.

Well there you have it. That is why you accept what you accept and why I accept something different. The strength of the evidence is in its interpretation. We each accept a different interpretation based on what we want to believe. Neither of us can "prove" that what we believe is true.

If you still don't understand why "proof" is a meaningless standard in science after having it explained to you this many times, I can't help you.

Wow! That is quite an admission....."proof is a meaningless standard in science". Read that again and hear yourself back.

Facts are based on proof...science has no real facts to support macro-evolution so they rely on the facts of micro-evolution to prop it up. Adaptation is a proven fact.....macro-evolution is an assumption based on what science wants to believe took place outside of what can be observed. That is the truth that evolutionists do not want to address.

Except evolution doesn't "kill God", never has and never will.

Oh, but it has in the minds of many young people. University campuses are full of bright young minds that were convinced in High School that they have no need of a Creator. The most vocal supporters of the evolutionary theory are avowed atheists. Any scientist who values their position and credibility stays in the closet, cowering to those loud voices of the opposition. God is dead in the minds of today's youth. Someone has to tell them the truth.

It has nothing to say on the existence of God, and your insinuation here just demonstrates that your argument is purely drawn from a perception that evolution is an attack on your faith. You are the one whose agenda is clearly the driving factor here.

I am a mere voice crying out in the wilderness.....I want people to see through the illusion that science has created. I want them to question and really read through the rhetoric that is presented to them. The truth is hidden in plain sight!

Evolution is not an attack on MY faith...it is a lie perpetrated by those who are themselves misled.
We all believe what we want to believe and the world has been sold a spiritually poisonous product, wrapped in nice packaging and sold with a solid, tried and tested marketing strategy. There are none so blind....
This is perception management at its finest.

As has been established, you haven't even the vaguest clue what evolutionary theory actually says, so you are not qualified to tell anyone that.

Oh please...appeals to ignorance again? Seriously, I can read as well as anyone and I am not unintelligent.
It isn't rocket science to expose a con job. There are many branches of science that contribute to our knowledge in marvelous ways, showing us in real demonstrable ways the mechanics of nature....but not this one branch. This branch has only suggestions and assertions, but they are sold to a gullible public as if they are right up there with the provable things, hoping no one will notice. All you have to do is read what they write without the rose colored glasses.

They give themselves away.

I've linked you to several times it has been directly observed.

What you linked to was examples of adaptation....which science likes to call "evolution" in the hope that you won't notice that adaptation does not prove macro-evolution except in a diagram drawn from scientist's imagination.

Frankly, I don't believe you.

It matters little to me what you believe.

Frankly I don't believe evolution, on the scale that science suggests, is even possible, let alone probable.
I came to that conclusion after reading science papers on the subject. You can read them too, but I guarantee you won't see what I see.

An understanding of biological diversity, the mechanisms of it, annual vaccinations against mutant strains of viruses, improved agriculture and farming methods and a greater understanding of how to preserve biological ecosystems among many other things.

But, hey, who care about those things? You have superstitions to preserve!

Oh, please. the mechanics of biodiversity do not support evolution.....they demonstrate design, not flukes of nature.

Annual vaccinations to address virus mutations? That mutation is adaptation not evolution. All living organism have this ability as a survival mechanism, so perhaps we need to talk about those antibiotic resistant strains and how they came to be resistant eh? Didn't science know that this would happen?

Improved farming and agriculture methods? Really? In what way have these methods improved anything much except yield? It might feed more people but GMO's are now becoming a worry. Messing with the stuff of life to make money has not resulted in anything more than an epidemic of cancer, obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Lets be realistic here. Artificial, chemically produced pesticides and fertilizers are poisoning us. Did you know that some strains of GMO plants are registered as "pesticides"?

Mineral deficient soils produce mineral deficient crops so that we now have a mineral deficient population succumbing to diseases that still have no cure, but are totally preventable with a natural living plant based diet.

Thus you expose your bias.

But of course...you don't have any bias at all.

Persistence and valid argument are not the same thing.

Valid arguments along with persistence can get a message across to people who haven't closed their minds on this topic. I am merely highlighting some very inconvenient truths. People can do their own research and come to their own conclusions....but its interesting to me that most of the evolutionists here will resort to personal attacks, rather than to provide their evidence. Its a classic diversional tactic.

Just read the previous comments.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, also known as speciation. Speciation has been observed multiple times. You lost this line of debate months ago.

Again with the speciation argument? It was debunked months ago. What is "speciation" IF? It is simply adaptation creating variety within a single taxonomic family of organisms. The flies were still flies...the fish were still fish and viruses were still viruses. Peppered moths changed color but were still peppered moths. We have hashed this out a hundred times and still you resort to it like it proves something.

Can you provide actual evidence that any of these creatures crossed the genetic boundaries that keep all their "kinds" separate?

What are you expecting, exactly?

Something convincing. There has been nothing to date that has anything but suggestion to back it up. I have suggestions too, but mine require less credulity IMO.

 

[Deeje]

The above are literally entirely false, but I'm used to them coming from you. Now, whether they are intentional or based on your ignorance of the subject, I cannot tell.

This is why it's impossible to have a serious discussion with you because you simply believe in and also fabricate falsehoods while strutting around with your holier-than-Thou personna.

Do your JW leaders teach you that it's right & proper to lie and distort as we have seen with your comments above? It appears so. It's no wonder they don't want you to try other churches or even go to funerals or weddings in other churches, or even read any publications from other denominations. They are truly a cult that tries its best to keep its followers ignorant. This is what they do, and I know this from not only my neighbors but also by some who have left that denomination.

Frankly, I don't think God would approve of your lying and strutting, including your attacks on Catholicism that are patently false. Even though some of us have shown you that they were false, yet you came back and reposted those same pathetic lies. And, yes, they are "lies"-- not different interpretations. Just one example were your repeated lies that Catholics worship the sun when it was shown you that this would violate Canon Law. But that still didn't stop you.

So, your approach here actually does far more harm to your JW's than it does good, largely because your approach makes them look bigoted and dishonest-- sorry to say.

So is that the scientific answer metis? Is whining about JW's answering the questions that beg to be answered?

I guess the first disciples of Jesus came across as lying and strutting about too? The Jews certainly hated them for daring to disagree with their teachers. They hated that Jesus fellow enough to want him dead!

The apostle Paul said..."For although we had first suffered and been insolently treated in Phi·lipʹpi, as you know, we mustered up boldness by means of our God to tell you the good news of God in the face of much opposition." (1 Thessalonians 2:2)

It was never going to be a peaceful process to divide people with the truth. As Jesus said..."Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

Why did the disciples need "boldness" in order to preach an unpopular message? Why was it going to cause division between people, even in families? Because that is what the truth does. It forces people to take sides.

Personal attacks do not answer the questions raised and so do not address the truth of this topic.

If you can't address the topic without personally attacking the poster, then people like you and @Jose Fly should stay off my threads. Please put me on ignore.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This is the only thing observed.

Man invented agriculture by imposing an artificial bottleneck; he selected tamer animals.

But that's just one behavior. What about the other behaviors?

No harm intended.

I believe much of the ancient writing had its origins in a different kind of language that can't be translated. These stories are simply attempts to translate them. The admonition not to change words is because there would be even more drift in meaning. As is, some of the original meaning in the original language can be deduced.

At least from what I can see, the Hebrew people changed Utnapishtim to Noah.

Utnapishtim - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

Reading comprehension problems? I didn't say they don't share their views? I said god-believing scientists don't share your views. It's a common phrase meaning their views about religion and god are not the same as your.

Its true, sometimes I read things wrong.

But I did address that point here...."They don't have any convictions...their belief in God is in the closet. They must be so proud of themselves...."

Their views on God and religion are theirs to have and to hold as long as there is breath in them. If they are ashamed of him, then their actions will betray it.

You see, when you have the courage of your convictions, God is never in the closet. If you shove him in there, you might just as well crawl in there too. Its a dark place, no one notices you and if you never come out, you simply starve to death.

 

[Segev Moran]

That's still wrong. Proof is a single fact or conclusion that demonstrates the truth of a given proposition.


Now you're just getting confused. Evidence is a fact presented as indicating the truth of a given conclusion - a fact, by its nature, is already observed as being true - it's the conclusion drawn from the fact which may not be - hence evidence, not proof.


See above. No amount of evidence counts as "proof" because evidence always leaves room for doubt and interpretation. You could have a thousand pieces of evidence and it still doesn't "prove" a conclusion, it just makes it more likely to be true - to prove the conclusion, you need PROOF, not evidence.


False. Proof is conclusive in and of itself, there is no stronger or weaker proof except in purely colloquial speech.


This is actually accurate.

Lol. I was so tired