Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

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

LOL...that's because you can't produce any that is not based on pure supposition. I'll grant you that what science presents is overwhelming in volume....but the content is not. I haven't seen you produce anything yet...except slights on my intellect. This isn't about me....this about science's ability to back up what it claims with real evidence.

Please explain what agenda you believe scientists need to uphold.

From my perspective, the agenda is clear and it is driven by some very strong egos in the world of science and academia in general. Just watch any video put out with Dawkins strutting his stuff. His speech does not reflect any hesitation in stating that evolution is an irrefutable fact. Which might be true if we are talking about adaptation.....but certainly not true when you step outside of what science can observe in a lab....it then ventures into supposition but the transition is so seamless that you'd never know that they had no conclusive evidence for what they are proffering.

From the purely Biblical perspective, we have an unseen but powerful enemy operating behind the scenes who can manipulate those egos and talk them into doing his bidding without them even having to acknowledge that someone else is pulling their strings. They think this is all their own idea.

1 John 5:19..."We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."

Materialists will brush that off as nonsense, but the spiritually minded among us will acknowledge that they can see his activity in the world very clearly. He told Jesus that rulership of this world was his, and that he could give it to whomever he wished. (Luke 4:5-6) The best way to gain access to people's minds and hearts is to give them what they want. Most people in this day and age see religion as some ancient leftover that needs to be eliminated from people's consciousness and replaced with something much more "scientific". But let's pause for a moment and ask how did science gain the upper hand here? How did science come to replace God or the need for a Creator? Wasn't it by suggesting that they could explain the existence of everything "scientifically" without him, thereby making belief in God seem redundant, and elevating science as the replacement for "religion?

Those chafing under the rules that God laid out in the Bible, (or even the stricter rules embellished by the Church,) were eager to get out from under that yoke. It looked like freedom....imagine what you could do if God's laws were no longer binding? Look around you and see that this is exactly what has happened. Is the world a better place because God and his laws have largely been removed? The Bible predicted that the situation we have now would be the result, even down to man's ability to ruin the earth itself....something that was not even in the realms of possibility back then.

This is what I believe is behind the push for science to replace ID and the need to get rid of God and his influence in people's lives. We have reached an all time low in human morality with less excuse because we all have access to education these days. Ignorance now is by choice.

 

[ecco]

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.

Deeje, there are a lot of people out there who are Christians, go to church, pray, etc openly and believe in ToE. Included among them are pastors and ministers.

On the other hand, many of these same people are fully convinced that JW is a cult.

When Jehovah’s Witnesses knock, DVD resource tells what to do

Southern Baptists and other evangelicals need to prepare with sound doctrine to defeat the inroads being made by this modern-day cult, says Tal Davis, interim director of interfaith evangelism at the North American Mission Board.
​

For everyone elsie, this link...

History of the Jehovah's Witnesses | Catholic Answers​

...has a good, reasonably short, synopsis of the history of JW. It includes the many failed predictions their leaders have made regarding Armageddon.

 

[ecco]

Please explain what agenda you believe scientists need to uphold.

From my perspective, the agenda is clear and it is driven by some very strong egos in the world of science and academia in general.
...
From the purely Biblical perspective, we have an unseen but powerful enemy operating behind the scenes who can manipulate those egos and talk them into doing his bidding without them even having to acknowledge that someone else is pulling their strings.
...
He told Jesus that rulership of this world was his, and that he could give it to whomever he wished.

If I understand you correctly, the agenda that scientists have is not really their agenda, it is Satan's agenda. The ignorant scientists are just doing Satan's bidding without even realizing it.

my emphasis in the following...

Most people in this day and age see religion as some ancient leftover that needs to be eliminated from people's consciousness

I can understand that ToE is too complicated for your indoctrinated brain to comprehend. But are you really too ignorant or just too lazy to do a little research before making ridiculous posts? Here is what is called a pie chart. If you don't understand pie charts, please ask and I will explain. If you do understand pie charts, you will see how wrong you are:

Ignorance now is by choice.

Indeed.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, there are a lot of people out there who are Christians, go to church, pray, etc openly and believe in ToE. Included among them are pastors and ministers.

Then they do not believe in the Bible....they believe the words of men. You can't have a foot in both camps claiming to believe both. They are diametrically opposed, so you have to choose one or the other. I have more respect for hot or cold, than I have for lukewarm, indecisive Christians personally.
Jesus does too apparently (Revelation 3:15-16)

All they have to do is take the question to God in prayer.....
"But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways." (James 1:6-8)

Or this scripture could explain why they receive no answers.

On the other hand, many of these same people are fully convinced that JW is a cult.

That is what they thought about the first century followers of Jesus.....people can think whatever they like.

I can understand that ToE is too complicated for your indoctrinated brain to comprehend.

Condescension is another favorite of the evolutionists.....I have equal concern for your indoctrinated brain....but how is this a substitute for presenting your evidence? Are you stalling?

Are insults all you can manage?

But are you really too ignorant or just too lazy to do a little research before making ridiculous posts?

More condescension.....you really must be running out of argument.....attack is the best defense when you have nothing else. Present your evidence.

If you do understand pie charts, you will see how wrong you are:

Religion in the world is dying and a lot of people are saying its a good thing....aren't you one of them?

I guess the result depends on who is conducting the polls?

The following is taken from the 2012 Global Index of Religion and Atheism, published by Gallup International. Polls involved 57 countries, representing over 73 percent of the world’s population......

AUSTRALIA

Polls indicate that nearly 50 percent of the population say they are not religious. Another 10 percent claim to be “convinced atheists.” In 2010, a clergyman lamented that “the last 40 years or so” has seen a “wholesale abandonment of the Christian faith.”

FRANCE

Only 37 percent of the people polled claimed to be religious. The rest were either atheists or simply not religious. In some parts of this once Catholic stronghold, Catholicism is in a state of “near-collapse,” said the magazine The Economist.

IRELAND

The Irish seem to be losing their faith en masse. Nearly 45 percent of respondents said they are not religious, and another 10 percent claimed to be atheists. Percentagewise, Ireland was among the top ten atheist populations. News reports are talking about “the end of Catholic Ireland.”

JAPAN

Just 16 percent of Japanese polled claimed to be religious; 62 percent were either not religious or atheists.

SOUTH AFRICA

Between 2005 and 2012, the number of South African respondents who said they were religious fell by 19 percent.

TUNISIA

In 2013, about 60 percent of Tunisians polled said that they no longer attend mosques but instead pray at home. The reason given was the violent ideology promoted there.

UNITED STATES

Since 2005, the number of people claiming to be religious fell by 13 percent. About 1 in 5 respondents had no religious affiliation. For adults under the age of 30, the ratio was 1 in 3. Thousands of churches close their doors each year.

VIETNAM

Between 2005 and 2012, the number of respondents professing to be religious fell from 53 percent to just 30 percent.

As far as I am aware, the trend has continued.

It seems as if having 'no religion' doesn't necessarily make you an atheist....it just means you don't give a damn. There appear to be more of these......I think its called apathy.

https://sidmennt.is/wp-content/uploads/Gallup-International-um-trú-og-trúleysi-2012.pdf

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

Could you present an example?

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.

Okay, so we have different interpretations of the evidence. The question is, what methodology can we use to determine which of our interpretations is more likely to be accurate? The answer is: the scientific method. The fact is that the evolutionary interpretation of the facts gives rise to greater explanatory power, advancement of knowledge and fits better with what has been directly observed that a model that involves separate, distinct creation events. That's just the way the facts go.

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

It's hardly an "admission", people have been saying it to you this whole time. "Proof" is not used in science, evidence is.

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.

Macro-evolution has been repeatedly observed.

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.

Lie.

The most vocal supporters of the evolutionary theory are avowed atheists.

Another lie. See Professor Kenneth Miller, a lecturer and former head of the human genome project who devoted a large chunk of his life to educating people on evolution and toured America giving lectures on how creation/intelligent design fails - and he is a practicing Roman Catholic.

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.

More lies on top of lies.

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!

Does this include the lies you tell?

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.

It has nothing to do with God, regardless of your wailing on the subject.

Oh please...appeals to ignorance again? Seriously, I can read as well as anyone and I am not unintelligent.

I never said you weren't intelligent, I said you were ignorant. Those are two very different things.

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.

You're the one who doesn't even understand what this supposed "con job" actually says. You're the one too blinded by your perception of evolution that you can't even see the reality.

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.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution above the species level, what I listed were observed examples of that. It was macro-evolution by definition. You're again moving your imaginary goalposts, defining any observed standard as "adaptation" and utterly failing to come up with a testable standard of your own.

It matters little to me what you believe.

Good, because I already know you're willing to lie to prop up your position.

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.

And yet you don't know that adaptation is a form of evolution and that evolution occurs within the taxa? Yeah, I don't believe you.

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?

How do you still not understand that adaptation is a form of evolution and that we can use evolutionary theory to accurately predict mutant strains?

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.

Ignoring the point and ranting and raving about irrelevancies.

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"?

I'm not interested in your fear-mongering.

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.

More irrelevancies.

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

That's accurate. What bias could possibly make me accept evolution for no good reason?

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.

But hundreds of posters HAVE provided evidence, and you have ignored ALL of it, that I'm aware of.

Again with the speciation argument? It was debunked months ago. What is "speciation" IF?

Macro-evolution.

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.

Evolution is WITHIN THE TAXA.

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

No, because "crossing genetic boundaries" isn't what evolution actually does. It produces variation WITHIN THE TAXA that result in SPECIATION.

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.

And what would convince you? What's the simplest form of evidence I could provide that would convince you evolution was true?

 

[Deeje]

Could you present an example?

Put on any YouTube video of Dawkins or Coyne...and really listen to the way they phrase references to their evidence. It is all speculative.

debates evolution jerry coyne - YouTube

Macro-evolution has been repeatedly observed.

Rubbish. Adaptation is not above the species level.....there is no observance of macro-evolution, there is assumption...big difference.
If you are so sure then please provide your evidence for this. If its merely adaptation, then don't bother.

Another lie. See Professor Kenneth Miller, a lecturer and former head of the human genome project who devoted a large chunk of his life to educating people on evolution and toured America giving lectures on how creation/intelligent design fails - and he is a practicing Roman Catholic.

Can Catholic Scientists really represent the truth? They are taught by the church to accept evolution. It looks like a knee jerk position so as not to end up in another Galileo type fiasco. They are afraid to argue with science. Like Jesus, I prefer credibility with God rather than man. His hand in creation makes way more sense to me that your concocted theory of undirected accidents ever will.

And what would convince you? What's the simplest form of evidence I could provide that would convince you evolution was true?

You could give me proof that evolution really ever happened. Something that did not involve suggestion, supposition, belief or faith, since these very things are what we base our belief system on. If you don't have facts, then you don't have proof. Evidence, when it is interpreted by evolutionists, is tainted by bias....the fox is in charge of the hen house.

If you can't produce anything more than your last post then I have nothing more to add.

You are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Put on any YouTube video of Dawkins or Coyne...and really listen to the way they phrase references to their evidence. It is all speculative.

debates evolution jerry coyne - YouTube

So you've gone from saying that they declare evolution an absolute fact to saying that they indicate evolution is speculative. Which is it?

Rubbish. Adaptation is not above the species level.....there is no observance of macro-evolution, there is assumption...big difference.
If you are so sure then please provide your evidence for this. If its merely adaptation, then don't bother.

I've already given you two lists of observed instances of speciation multiple times. Here they are again:
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Can Catholic Scientists really represent the truth? They are taught by the church to accept evolution. It looks like a knee jerk position so as not to end up in another Galileo type fiasco. They are afraid to argue with science. Like Jesus, prefer credibility with God rather than man. His hand in creation makes way more sense to me that your concocted theory of undirected accidents ever will.

"The most prominent supporters of evolutionary theory are atheists."
"Actually, here is the name of a very prominent biologist who is a support of evolution, an opponent of intelligent design/creationism, and a theist."
"Oh, but they're not the right TYPE of theist, so we can't trust anything they say."

Again, your argument is that only people who already agree with all of your specific conclusions are trustworthy, and everyone who falls outside of that incredibly narrow range should be dismissed. Your goalposts are constantly in motion.

You could give me proof that evolution really ever happened.

I'm rapidly losing patience with you again, Deeje. We have been over this countless times - evolution HAS been observed, it is the name we give the process of populations of living organisms changing over time. Whether your believe that this results in common descent on is merely limited to "adaptation" - it is still evolution; just as dropping a pen on a table is still gravity even if you don't believe the same force causes the planets to move.

Secondly, PROOF DOES NOT EXIST IN SCIENCE BECAUSE ALL CONCLUSIONS REMAIN TENTATIVE. Why are you so incapable of absorbing this one, very basic, fact?

Now, give me a specific example. Imagine a hypothetical fact that, if presented to you, would convince you of evolution. Give me an example of what such a fact would or could look like, and be specific. Answering "proof" isn't sufficient, because I'm asking you what you would accept as proof; so can you provide me with that?

Something that did not involve suggestion, supposition, belief or faith, since these very things are what we base our belief system on. If you don't have facts, then you don't have proof. Evidence, when it is interpreted by evolutionists, is tainted by bias....the fox is in charge of the hen house.

The only one here who has exposed their bias is you, Deeje.

If you can't produce anything more than your last post then I have nothing more to add.

If you can't do anything but repeat arguments that have already been addressed and completely ignore/lie about what has been presented to you, then it is clear you had nothing to contribute from the beginning.

You are free to believe whatever you wish.

As are you, but reality isn't bound by your biases. Reality says you are wrong in your assessment and understanding of evolution.

 

[ecco]

Deeje, there are a lot of people out there who are Christians, go to church, pray, etc openly and believe in ToE. Included among them are pastors and ministers.

Then they do not believe in the Bible

Riiight! Everyone's beliefs are wrong. Deeje's are right.

I have more respect for hot or cold, than I have for lukewarm, indecisive Christians personally.

And I have more respect for fundies who believe the bible - as it was written. A day is a Day, not some period of time decided by some hustlers trying to start their own version of Christianity.

...but how is this a substitute for presenting your evidence? .... Present your evidence.

I understand that you have been taught to lie, that is part of your JW training.

You been on this forum for almost 10 years. How many times have people said "I presented the evidence and you ignored it"? It's probably happened half a dozen times in just this thread.

If you were an honest person you could say, I don't have the training to understand the evidence or I don't want to believe. But all you do is, repeatedly, say you have not been presented with any evidence. That's just an outright lie.

 

[metis]

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.

I knew you'd come back with this because you make fun of others and insult them, but if someone responds back to you, you then slip into the cute little girl whom I'm supposedly picking on-- utter hypocrisy at its blatant worse.

So, why don't you put me on "ignore" instead, Deeje?

 

[metis]

Is whining about JW's answering the questions that beg to be answered?

The above is a great example of your hypocrisy on this, Deeje. How many times have we seen your rants against the RCC and Judaism, often making false accusations, such as the RCC's supposed worship of the sun or praying to statues, etc.?

There is nothing I said that is false about the JW's, at least as far as I know, but notice how you bristle when someone criticizes your denomination while you have been repeatedly attacking other denominations and religions, including repeating one lie after another even when is well established that you are wrong.

And you do much the same with science and scientists, having them doing or saying things that are patently false, thus refusing to back off even when it's established that you simply are wrong or that you could be wrong.

Anyhow, fini.

 

[gnostic]

The "everyone else believes it except you ignorant idiots" catchphrase doesn't work on me. I like to evaluate things for myself. I ask all the hard questions and if I see a "might have" or a "could have" mentioned in an article on evolution, I know that they are speculating, not presenting real evidence. Most people don't even notice.

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

Deeje doesn’t understand that science rely on the NUMBERS and strength of verifiable evidences, not faith and belief.

It is religion that are based on belief and faith, for its justification.

She continued to confuse evidences with beliefs, and confuse evidences with proofs, that only demonstrate her ignorance.

She isn’t a biologist, so she cannot possibly be authority to what is or isn’t evolution.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were the first two people who pioneered evolution through Natural Selection.

Both of them are Christians. Although later in life Darwin had leaning towards agnosticism, he was never atheist. And even wrote a pin one of letters, of never being an atheist.

And majority of biologists at that time, in the late 19th century, who accepted evolution, were Christians, not atheists.

So either (A), you are ignorant of the early history of evolution, or (B) you know about it, and chose to ignore this piece of information, make you dishonest.

 

[gnostic]

LOL...that's because you can't produce any that is not based on pure supposition. I'll grant you that what science presents is overwhelming in volume....but the content is not. I haven't seen you produce anything yet...except slights on my intellect. This isn't about me....this about science's ability to back up what it claims with real evidence.

No, this is about you never being honest to others, nor to yourself.

You cannot stop making one false claim after another, no matter how many times people tried to correct you.

You simply refused to learn from your mistakes, speak volumes of your flawed traits.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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.



Is this a favorite expression with you lot?

Anyone who disagrees with you has to be 'ignorant' and 'indoctrinated'....but that could never happen to you guys, eh?

If science can't prove what they say.....they have a fat hide claiming the high ground here.

If evolution was a fact, and science could prove that what they assume is true...there could be no debate....do you understand this? You don't have science fact....so logically, all you have is science fiction.

You can believe it all if you wish.....it doesn't make it true.



LOL...why do you suppose they don't share their views? Fear of ridicule? Fear of losing credibility? Scared to stand up and demonstrate the courage of their convictions? What a joke! They don't have any convictions...their belief in God is in the closet. They must be so proud of themselves....

Why don't you do a little research of your own and show me some material on macro-evolution that has no suggestion...no supposition...and no guesswork attached. Please.....show us where 'faith' and 'belief' play no part in your acceptance of the ToE. I will be waiting for your response.

Bring it on.

Remember the last time you tried this one and I pointed out Francis Collins to you, who has said such things as:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

He identifies as a born again Christian who used to be an atheist but was converted after an experience with a waterfall that he had while out hiking one day. As he says here, he was the leading scientist on the Human Genome Project. He accepts evolution because he's seen the overwhelming evidence. He doesn't hide his beliefs, as you suggest above. He even used the word "proof" that you've been hungering for.


Next time you want to denigrate an entire group of people as dishonest, biased, conspiratorial liars, maybe you'll think of Francis Collins. Or you'll just forget about him and repeat all the same stuff all over again next week as though this never happened.

P.S. You've been shown a ton of evolution for macroevolution, over and over again on these threads. Pretending that you've never seen it doesn't make it go away.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


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

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.



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?



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.

You really need some new material Deeje. Your posts read like a broken record.
Also, it would be awesome if you were able to take in and retain new information.

 

[Deeje]

You really need some new material Deeje. Your posts read like a broken record.
Also, it would be awesome if you were able to take in and retain new information.

Oh, I will if you will....

Next time you want to denigrate an entire group of people as dishonest, biased, conspiratorial liars, maybe you'll think of Francis Collins. Or you'll just forget about him and repeat all the same stuff all over again next week as though this never happened.

It is none of my business what Francis Collins wants to believe....that is between him and his Maker.
His training (indoctrination) as an atheistic scientist programmed his mindset. So when he had his "experience with a waterfall"

he had a conflict of belief which he had to integrate......no doubt about how he did that.

DNA is the fundamental code of life that was written by the hand of an intelligent and masterful Creator using the same raw materials for all his living creatures. What code used by man never has an intelligent author? Similarity is inevitable when the same raw materials are used for all. Artists do this all the time.....it is often their signature. The same basic frameworks are used for a wide variety of 'constructions'.....which translates to amazing variety. "Variety is spice of life"....and we love it.

The Creator does not tell us the details of his methods or how long it took him to fashion his endless variety of living things, which he integrated into an environment also specifically created to support all this life in a self sustaining way......He is a genius who deserves full credit for what he created....not some second hand credit down on a list that scientists, who claim to be believers, have made up.
Atheists don't have him on any list.

It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to worship the "Creator of heaven and earth" and then to denigrate him to some second rate position as if science must be served first....Hypocrites have no part with this Creator, so that is why we must choose our position. Those not on God's side 100% will not share in what he has planned for the future of this planet and its inhabitants. All they have done is place a foot in both camps to maintain their credibility in the world of science, whilst wearing a thin veneer of their so called faith. Calling yourself a Christian and then denying the Creator will not result in a good outcome, IMO. Time will tell I guess....

 

[Deeje]

P.S. You've been shown a ton of evolution for macroevolution, over and over again on these threads. Pretending that you've never seen it doesn't make it go away.

To those who continue to attack the poster instead of addressing the subject, I am still waiting for some substantive evidence from the scientists here to show us how macro-evolution has led to all forms of life on this planet.

I asked for evidence that did not involve suggestion, supposition, or conjecture and nothing that required faith or belief because these are what ID believers have as the basis for believing in a directed creation by the deliberate hand of an Intelligent Designer. I also asked that examples of adaptation NOT be presented as evidence because this is actually something science has observed. It explains variety within a taxonomic family, but there is nothing in their experimentation that confirms that any species can cross over into something outside of their taxa. IOW, no matter how much time elapses, a four legged land dweller will never become a whale. A lizard will never become a bird...and the amoebas will never morph into dinosaurs.

OK, so let's address the so called evidence for "macro-evolution".....SPECIATION....which has been repeatedly used to justify belief in evolutionary processes that supposedly resulted in all species of every living organism on earth.

Berkeley is a favorite site for me because it is used to educate students. It's in plain English, stripped of its jargon and simplified so that you don't need a degree in science to comprehend what is being said.
This is how children are slyly indoctrinated to believe that something huge occurred out of something very small.

"Defining speciation

Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species. Imagine that you are looking at a tip of the tree of life that constitutes a species of fruit fly. Move down the phylogeny to where your fruit fly twig is connected to the rest of the tree. That branching point, and every other branching point on the tree, is a speciation event. At that point genetic changes resulted in two separate fruit fly lineages, where previously there had just been one lineage. But why and how did it happen?

The branching points on this partial Drosophila phylogeny represent long past speciation events. Here is one scenario that exemplifies how speciation can happen:"

These "speciation events" produced what? Different species of the same fly....? Proving what? That variety is possible within a specific "family"?

• "The scene: a population of wild fruit flies minding its own business on several bunches of rotting bananas, cheerfully laying their eggs in the mushy fruit...
  
  
  
  
  
• Disaster strikes: A hurricane washes the bananas and the immature fruit flies they contain out to sea. The banana bunch eventually washes up on an island off the coast of the mainland. The fruit flies mature and emerge from their slimy nursery onto the lonely island. The two portions of the population, mainland and island, are now too far apart for gene flow to unite them. At this point, speciation has not occurred — any fruit flies that got back to the mainland could mate and produce healthy offspring with the mainland flies.
  
  
  
  
  
• The populations diverge: Ecological conditions are slightly different on the island, and the island population evolves under different selective pressures and experiences different random events than the mainland population does. Morphology, food preferences, and courtship displays change over the course of many generations of natural selection.
  
  
  
  
  
• So we meet again: When another storm reintroduces the island flies to the mainland, they will not readily mate with the mainland flies since they've evolved different courtship behaviors. The few that do mate with the mainland flies, produce inviable eggs because of other genetic differences between the two populations. The lineage has split now that genes cannot flow between the populations.
  
  The lineage is "split" and those two separated fruit flies will not mate with their mainland cousins because the triggers for mating have changed...but will they ever become anything but fruit flies?
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Download the graphics on this page from the Image library.

This is a simplified model of speciation by geographic isolation, but it gives an idea of some of the processes that might be at work in speciation. In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence. However, the evidence that this sort of process does happen is strong."

Defining speciation

So what do we have here? What is this evidence for? It looks suspiciously like "ADAPTATION" to me...and its only "part of the story"...the rest is filled in by imagination and guesswork. You don't see it?

Did the flies ever fall outside of their taxa? Would they ever do so, no matter how much time elapses? You may have an endless variety of fruit flies....but that is all they will ever be. You have nothing to show otherwise that does not involve conjecture.....the true definition of a theory.

If you can't do better than this weak speciation argument, which has been addressed every time it has been repeated, then I assume you have nothing else.

I'm sorry, but the "evidence" is rather pathetic. Try again. And this time try to eliminate science's "beliefs" as opposed to facts that can be substantiated.

 

[Deeje]

The protests are getting old people.....where is the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The protests are getting old people.....where is the evidence?

You won't let yourself even understand the concept of evidence. Until you do that there really is no point in giving you any.

 

[gnostic]

The protests are getting old people.....where is the evidence?

Where are your evidences for the Creator or the Designer?

Wait...you have none. Yes, this is old.