Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[gnostic]

@Deeje and @ecco:

And really, if scientists ever did create life, it would only be evidence that life needs an intelligent source to create it.

Plus, I’d be very interested in it’s ability to procreate.

But if scientists make life exist from inorganic matters, the scientists wouldn't be invisible nonexistent beings, like your illusions of Designer, Creator or God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Evolution, whether it be mutation, genetic drift or natural selection, it is about genetics, passing inheritance genes and DNA. It explains biological changes".....yes it does but all science has to go on is adaptation...

Since you have yet to define the distinction between "adaptation" and "evolution", this distinction is meaningless. If adaptation occurs, and you admit that, what is preventing "lots of adaptation" from accumulating and causing a broader diversification of species?

it is the only thing that has ever been observed.....

Since evolution and adaptation are the same process, you are thus admitting evolution has been observed.

the rest is suggested as a possibility with no way to verify or validate any of it.

But there is a way to validate it, DNA and fossils both show clear and unmistakable signs of a nested hierarchy that we would have absolutely no reason to see if evolution weren't true.

You have faith in something science cannot prove.

Science doesn't "prove" things. This has been told to you countless times by dozens of posters, why do you still not understand that very simple fact?

Is my faith less valid than yours?

We don't believe on faith, we follow the evidence.

I can see the Creator's handiwork with my own eyes....why can't you?

Because you're irrational and biased.

You seem to want to put science on some kind of pedestal.....the higher the pedestal the harder the fall.
Science is not the 'be all and end all' of everything....just sayin....it is as flawed as the men who write it.

Men also wrote all the texts on which your religion is based. At least science can use prediction and experimentation to confirm or refute its hypotheses, and science has the power to change when errors are made. Your religion doesn't. The mistakes that were made interpreting the desires of a supernatural creator thousands of years ago are still the same errors today, and you base your entire belief on the assumption that such errors don't exist, regardless of whether reality bears it out or not.

 

[ArtieE]

......but science is no further forward in establishing how life arose by "natural" means in the first place, let alone how a single celled organism could morph into all manner of living things on earth.

So your solution is simply to proclaim that your god dit it and problem solved? Never in the history of the universe has that proven to be the correct approach...

Shouldn't suggestions that we are related to fruit flies and bananas be hard to state with a straight face?

According to you fruit flies and bananas and us have the same father and no mother... but we aren't related?

 

[ArtieE]

Conclusion: The evidence seems to suggest that all life on Earth has developed from a single organism back in the mists of time, and perhaps even from one single common ancestral cell. Current thought suggest that the “last universal common ancestor” (the hypothetical latest living organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend, or, in other words, the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth) is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. However, the actual mechanism for its origination is still far from clear.
The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

Shall we hold our breath waiting whilst scientists keep running down a track that always has a dead end?

Shall we hold our breath waiting whilst theists keep running down the track where they claim some god to be responsible? A track which always has a dead end?

 

[ArtieE]

how amazing!....An "inert collection of chemicals"...what an interesting way to describe the fact that these cells are produced by a living body that actually has to interact with the cells produce in another living body so that these cells can meet through the process of mating (for sexual reproduction) and form into a living being. Those cells, once joined, can then divide and produce all the body parts of whatever creature is programmed into the DNA of those cells. This is observed every time something reproduces....

To my way of thinking, its the process that leads to the production of the cells that is more important, because without them, there can be no mating, no joining...no dividing....no life.

Life didn't just materialize out of thin air.

So what you are actually saying is that you have no problem with two cells joining and then replicating into a brontosaurus without divine intervention but atoms and molecules can't form one simple cell that can replicate itself naturally without divine intervention?

 

[ArtieE]

Orthodox medicine has been focused on very expensive drug related treatments for disease for decades with little in the way of advancement towards cures for anything

And what is your alternative? Prayer? Faith healing? What cures do you have?

 

[ArtieE]

@Deeje and @ecco:

And really, if scientists ever did create life, it would only be evidence that life needs an intelligent source to create it.

Is your god alive? If so, what intelligent source created him?

 

[ecco]

...
We can weigh up what sounds reasonable, from what is too far fetched....that is why we have an intellectual capacity.....

Maybe that's why a lot of people are turning away from "too far fetched" stories like those found in the OT.
Maybe that's why a lot of people have come to understand that End Of Times predictions from some religious groups are just "too far fetched".

Drugs are designed to treat symptoms, not to cure disease.

High blood pressure is not a symptom. High blood pressure is a disease. Today's drugs can treat high blood pressure.

How can science know so much but still do so little?

Science does more now than it could do 100 years ago.

I believe the lid on this corruption is slowly being lifted...
....just as God said it would be before he brought it to its finish.

Wasn't that supposed to happen in 1819 or was it 1914?

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen... a world controlled by the devil

Yep.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So you have no science degree? You just relied on science textbooks to tell you the story? How do you know that the story they told you is true?

You can read the peer reviewed scientific papers yourself, and even repeat their experiments if you want. You don't have to rely on anyone. The evidence is still sitting right there in the real world.

You can't see the hand of an Intelligent Designer in creation.......yet I see it very clearly.

You need to demonstrate that this is true independent of your claims.

There is a clear divide between those who accept that macro-evolution is based on real evidence, and those who see that evidence as only unsubstantiated conjecture. The fence sitters will have to decide where they stand because, whoever is not for God will be deemed to be against him.

If you have to go to the extreme of claiming that facts aren't facts, then what does that say about your position? I think you are making quite the impression on the fence sitters, but not the one you want to make. When you see a person on one side of the debate who has to deny reality, it kind of says a lot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you have no science degree? You just relied on science textbooks to tell you the story? How do you know that the story they told you is true? You can't see the hand of an Intelligent Designer in creation.......yet I see it very clearly. There is a clear divide between those who accept that macro-evolution is based on real evidence, and those who see that evidence as only unsubstantiated conjecture. The fence sitters will have to decide where they stand because, whoever is not for God will be deemed to be against him.



I don't believe that evolutionists can claim to be honest if they teach that suggestions are facts.

If you accept evolution, you are an evolutionist...if you promote and support the theory, how could you call yourself anything else?
I never said all evolutionists were atheists. I said that you can't have a foot in both camps because that is simply compromise. Rationalisation is what humans do to hang onto beliefs that are open to question. You don't think scientists do that too?



Actually, I am exposing one of the greatest conspiracy theories there ever was. There is only one reason for life appearing on this earth and the Bible teaches that there is a very powerful con artist at the bottom of atheistic evolution's strong promotion......but science is no further forward in establishing how life arose by "natural" means in the first place, let alone how a single celled organism could morph into all manner of living things on earth.

The "mountains of evidence" are in reality "molehills of suggestion" when you analyse what they say. Scientists do not handle questioning their pet theory very well....they are inclined to lose their cool and start questioning their opponent's intelligence....I question theirs.....unashamedly. Attack is a very poor form of defence IMO.

Shouldn't suggestions that we are related to fruit flies and bananas be hard to state with a straight face?

Because you can verify it for yourself. As you already know, because of course, this is not the first time I've pointed this out. Do you know what a footnote or an endnote is? How about a reference?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did, and if you read through my posts, you will see that I just love links to "scientific evidence" because they are so transparent if you read them more carefully. Unless you have your perceptions changed to accept baseless speculation as "evidence" you will hang onto their wishful thinking like its truth.

Scientists present their work honestly and tentatively, knowing that new evidence can be brought to light, which is why they don’t make the absolute statements you are looking for. Scientific assertions are based on probability and confidence intervals. The most important thing about scientific findings is, that they are observable, demonstrable and repeatable by anyone who is interested enough to attempt to repeat them. And if something is not observable, repeatable and demonstrable, it’s not accepted as scientific fact.

You have yet to address something that I have repeatedly pointed out to you. That being that the evidences for evolution are drawn from many different fields of science, from multiple different independent scientists over the course of 150+ years. All of these evidences point to the exact same conclusion. How do you account for this?

And I have to ask again for what is probably the fifth or sixth time … What kind of science courses have you taken? How many in a post-secondary setting? Have you ever seen a science textbook and wondered what the names and dates in brackets beside the text are? Because it appears to me that you’ve never set foot in a science classroom.

Do you?

Yes, I have many, including the rebuttals to your fallacious arguments. I do not want to make fallacious arguments so I would welcome you pointing out where you think I have done it, so that I may correct my errors. So, where I have make fallacious arguments?

If you think my arguments are fallacious, please point out where, why and how, as I’ve done with yours.

Do you have irrefutable evidence that dinosaurs are the result of evolutionary processes that started with nothing more than an 'accidental' living cell popping up out of nowhere for no apparent reason and resulting in all the lifeforms we see on earth, both past and present? They just "happened" like the universe and the habitats on this once void planet that also just happened to provide all the necessary elements to perpetually support all this life? How many 'unplanned accidents' would it take to get here, do you think? Where is your proof for all these 'unplanned accidents'? I haven't seen any.

If you want proofs you should go do some math.

You’re still pushing just pushing your argument from personal incredulity. You don’t understand how it all could have happened so you’ve inserted a God into the equation to explain it all away with magic or something. The problem is, it doesn’t really explain anything. It’s just a place filler.

We have a nested hierarchy demonstrating the common descent of all life on the planet which is derived from multiple different fields of science.

Exactly! Collins already had his mind programmed by the science with which he was indoctrinated, so when something 'unexplainable' happened to cause doubt, he merely fused the two together in order to accommodate both science and God. It is not uncommon. A foot in both camps is sort of like "insurance" for people like him. It is also handy if you want to keep your job.

You’re still not making sense. If here were heavily indoctrinated into science (whatever that means), he would have never had a religious experience at all, because as you point out, he’d be closed off to it. Except that he DID have a religious experience, despite your assertions about indoctrination. But as he said, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming; it’s irrational to deny it. Also, he appears to believe that God would be intelligent enough to have come up with evolution as a design plan. You don’t, I guess.

People who accept logic, rationality and scientific evidence are not indoctrinated. Rather, they are exercising reason.

That applies to "no true scientist" too doesn't it? You can call yourself one, but it really doesn't mean much if you have no belief in what science teaches. If your job is to teach something that you believe is false, then that just makes you a hypocrite. A foot in both camps is merely a rationalization....like a lot of science, it only works in theory.

No, because we rely on the EVIDENCE, not individual opinions expressed by scientists.

And no, you can’t call yourself a scientist if you haven’t studied the subject and met specific educational requirements. In the same way you can’t become a lawyer without going to school and eventually passing a bar exam.

Something about "he who laughs last" comes to mind. If nothing, the story of Noah should make people think twice. Noah did not convince a single person to listen to his warning.....history repeats you know. (Matthew 24:37-39)

So your just going to double down on the empty claims. Great.

Your own arguments don't hold any water. Show us the evidence for what goes beyond adaptation.....please.

Let me know when you can demonstrate that. I’ve already pointed out to you that adaptation is evolution.

Show us how it does not require "belief" or "faith" in what other humans say.

I’ve done this and explained this countless times now. So have many others.

The criteria is in the Bible. People can read about what it means to be a Christian and judge for themselves if they meet it...they don't have to answer to me.

But you are judging other Christians. You’ve judged Francis Collins and even purported to know why he believes the way he does when I’m wiling to bet that you barely know who he is, despite the fact that I’ve pointed him out to you before.

Not to mention the fact that other Christians will tell me that you’re not a real Christian. If the criteria is right there in the Bible and it’s so obvious, why are there thousands of different Christian denominations in existence, each claiming to have the “correct” interpretation. If you guys can’t even figure it out among yourselves, how is anyone else supposed to be able to?

Like I said before, get back to me when you can all manage to get on the same page. Because it sounds to me like you’re all just making up whatever you like. And none of you can demonstrate any of it. You’ve only had thousands of years though, so I guess we’ll just keep waiting. I mean seriously, you’re best evidence/argument against evolution is pictures of animals and plants that you personally think are attractive. That says it all.

I am not Muslim because I follow the God of Abraham through the line of Isaac and Jacob...not Ishmael. Jews and Muslims portend to worship the same God but they got lost along the way. Christendom has invented her own strange version of God.

Good for you.

The Muslims have an “instruction manual” too. Why don’t you follow that one? How do you know they “got lost along the way?” Can you prove it?

I can say the same about you. I have yet to see anything about macro-evolution that wasn't pure speculation.

No, you couldn’t. I and many others have provided you all kinds of evidences, all over many threads that you summarily dismiss over and over because you don’t understand evidence and are instead looking for “proof.”

Here is some more evidence for you to wave off:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01604.x
Fossil Horses--Evidence for Evolution
Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan
Macroevolution of insect–plant associations: The relevance of host biogeography to host affiliation
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
CB910: New species
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

And you are going to stick to your version of events with as little actual proof for what you believe as I do.

There is a ton of evidence for evolutionary theory. Evolution is a fact. It happens. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for that fact.

We’re not talking about “versions of events.” We are talking about logical arguments. You have repeatedly made fallacious and illogical arguments. When they’re pointed out to you, rather than correcting them, you either double down on them, or make yet another fallacious argument. It’s one small step above having no argument at all. “I don’t understand this thing so it must be exact God I already believe in” isn’t an argument that holds any weight. There’s nothing convincing about it to anyone who doesn’t already believe it.

As I say...we have a stalemate...not a checkmate. One of us will ultimately have to concede at some point in the future. All we can do is wait and find out.

In the meantime, I will stick with rational arguments and evidence, while you stick with your illogical arguments.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Is your god alive? If so, what intelligent source created him?

Do you know anything about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? It states that energy can't be created, or destroyed.

My God, Jehovah, exists in a form of pure energy, with an invisible nature that can't be detected by scientific analysis. Once you detect Him....one day, you will (and I honestly don't think it will be to your detriment; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, I hope).....we'll talk about it, ok?

 

[cladking]

No, cladking. The only person is wrong about this, is you. You have a very narrow definition of what science can do.

The more "science" deviates from metaphysics the greater the probability it is wrong.

Years ago someone got it in his head that autistic people merely lacked the ability to verbalize rather than the ability to acquire modern language. He and thousands of other "scientists" around the world invented numerous devices to "facilitate" their ability to communicate. Autistic people were "actually" writing books and poetry and performing other feats of genius. One of these "facilitators" even used a ouija board to communicate with his subjects. Of course it was found to all be in the minds of the scientists and autistic people simply failed to acquire language.

As an aside I believe they failed to acquire language because before they were two their knowledge of natural human language (Ancient Language) was reinforced. Rather than learn a new language they instead waited for someone to speak theirs.

Science has no meaning outside metaphysics and a great deal of the so called "theory" of evolution lies well outside metaphysics. It is holier than swiss cheese and its proponents are the holiest of all holier than thou/s.

Most "science" now days and all "flavor of the day science" is ouija board science. It is just interpretation and guess work on the part of experts and has no backing in experiment or reality. Nonsense masquerades as "science" because it all fell off the beam in the 1890's.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Do you know anything about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? It states that energy can't be created, or destroyed.

But energy can change form and become unusable.

Sunlight hits water and warms it. That sunlight is now gone even if that energy has been transferred into an increase in temperature.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you know anything about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? It states that energy can't be created, or destroyed.

My God, Jehovah, exists in a form of pure energy, with an invisible nature that can't be detected by scientific analysis. Once you detect Him....one day, you will (and I honestly don't think it will be to your detriment; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, I hope).....we'll talk about it, ok?

I can personally detect "pure energy" but science can't?

 

[gnostic]

The more "science" deviates from metaphysics the greater the probability it is wrong.

What a load of crap.

Metaphysics is not science, it’s philosophy. And there are literally hundreds of different philosophies, often not agreeing with each other, so they cannot be all “right”.

Metaphysics, like other philosophies, are dependent on people advocating and defending their respective philosophies, just as Catholics and Protestants have their own philosophies, their own creed and dogma, their own politics.

But none of these philosophies are truly objective.

The only way for science to be objective, is through verifiable and testable evidences that are independent of any religion and independent of any philosophy and independent of any politics.

Metaphysics is just all talk, but no substance.

 

[cladking]

The only way for science to be objective, is through verifiable and testable evidences that are independent of any religion and independent of any philosophy and independent of any politics.

Metaphysics is just all talk, but no substance.

You need to consult a dictionary to find the definition of "metaphysics" and then spend a few years studying science in the terms of this definition.

As you're using the term "evidence" is irrelevant to science or understanding reality. Science, real science, is based in experiment and understood in terms of models.

"Evidence" is subjective and this is why there was no real science (modern) until the invention of the scientific process. Subjectivity is founded in belief and modern language.

It's hardly a wonder people can't understand a science based in Ancient Language and logic when they can't understand the one we actually use based in experiment.

 

[Deeje]

So your solution is simply to proclaim that your god dit it and problem solved? Never in the history of the universe has that proven to be the correct approach...

Who says? Man has only advanced in science in the last 100 years.....what worked for him before all that?
The Creator gave us the intelligence to study what he created.....so now in the last 100 years, he has become so clever that he doesn't need God anymore....he knows it all and can dispense with any mention of him....that is actually very funny. Compared with the Creator, the most intelligent human on earth would have the mentality of a snail.

According to you fruit flies and bananas and us have the same father and no mother... but we aren't related?

I'm not sure that God ever claimed to be the "father" of fruit flies or bananas....but he did claim the human race as his 'children' though, giving them the qualities and attributes that he has....something he did not give the animals. He directly created the first pair and told them to "fill the earth" with their "kind"...and as far as I can see, that is exactly what they did. That is exactly what all living creatures did. Science cannot prove otherwise, despite all the huffing and puffing...they have no conclusive evidence that macro-evolution ever happened.

Shall we hold our breath waiting whilst theists keep running down the track where they claim some god to be responsible? A track which always has a dead end?

Since neither of us have reached the end of their road yet...I will wait to see the outcome.....what about you?
If you're right...what have I lost?......if I'm right, what have you lost? Its a fair question.

So what you are actually saying is that you have no problem with two cells joining and then replicating into a brontosaurus without divine intervention but atoms and molecules can't form one simple cell that can replicate itself naturally without divine intervention?

I have no problem understanding that cells are programmed to become whatever creature they are coded to produce. A brontosaurus would have been the product of two brontosauruses combining their DNA to produce another brontosaurus. There is nothing in the fossil record that even suggests that there is some "chain" linking all these creatures in an evolutionary line of descent....that is all supposition based on nothing but an idea of what "might have" happened.

A single cell that popped up in some primordial "soup" in the dim dark past would produce what? From what we know, it would produce a replica of itself.

And what is your alternative? Prayer? Faith healing? What cures do you have?

No actually, my alternative is that I have a really good naturopath who gives me herbal remedies and recommendations to overcome deficiencies in my diet that get to the cause of my problems. It works on my dog too. I gave up on doctors a long time ago...all they want to do is load you up with drugs that make you worse, and don't cure anything.
That is my personal decision because JW's have no rules concerning personal choice of medical treatments.

The orthodox medical system as it stands today IMO is a sick joke....and big pharma are laughing all the way to the bank, whilst its patients are crying all the way to their early graves. But I get the impression that the tide is turning and more people are seeing what is happening and are tired of doctors not knowing what to do to successfully address their health concerns and charging like wounded elephants for the privilege of being told that all they can do is give them drugs that will hopefully make the symptoms manageable. They are, after all, educated by the system that manufactures the drugs.

Autoimmune disorders are on the rise because of the lifestyle, poor diet and toxic chemicals that we are all exposed to in the west....the orthodox approach is powerless in addressing even the symptoms, let alone to advise anyone about what to do to gain relief, long term.

The issues regarding medicinal cannabis have stirred a hornet's nest and people are now realizing why this harmless plant was demonized decades ago to stop it from helping people as an effective medicine for so many ailments. Big pharma did not want it to make people well.....classifying it as a dangerous and harmful drug...a menace to society, worked for decades...but the truth is out...big pharma lied and is being exposed for the racketeering fraud that it always was. This is one conspiracy theory that is proving to be correct. What if they had the means to cure cancer decades ago and they found a way to keep it from us by hijacking the medical system? People have no idea how deep the corruption goes....but they are beginning to find out. God said he would expose it...and he is.

 

[Deeje]

Maybe that's why a lot of people are turning away from "too far fetched" stories like those found in the OT.
Maybe that's why a lot of people have come to understand that End Of Times predictions from some religious groups are just "too far fetched".

People are free to choose to believe whatever they wish. Since the Bible predicts that "few" would actually be found faithful at the full limit of the times....what you say is sadly true. They have adopted stories more far fetched than the ones they threw away. They will realize this soon enough.

High blood pressure is not a symptom. High blood pressure is a disease. Today's drugs can treat high blood pressure.

Oh dear...you're not a physician are you...because if you were you would know that high blood pressure is a symptom, not a disease in itself. Doctors will give people medication to control their high blood pressure but as the Heart Foundation confirms...there is a reason.

"Many people also need medicine to control their high blood pressure. Your doctor will tell you if you need medicine, and monitor its effects. Blood pressure medicines don’t cure high blood pressure, but they help to control it. You have to keep taking the medicines regularly, often for the rest of your life. Don’t stop taking your medicine without talking to your doctor first."

What causes high blood pressure | The Heart Foundation

Customers for life.

No cures......just symptom control.

Science does more now than it could do 100 years ago.

I would hope so....but has it reached a stage where it knows everything? Sometimes it gives the impression that it does. It is so intelligent now that it can confidently dispense with all mention of the one who created what they study.

Go figure?

Wasn't that supposed to happen in 1819 or was it 1914?

No actually, we discovered that 1914 was the beginning of the "last days"...not the end. Exciting isn't it?

It's just as the Bible says...the closer we get to the end, the clearer things will become. (Proverbs 4:18)

As the features of the sign Jesus gave us, continue to be displayed, we know that the world is sinking further and further into a moral morass. Just as surely as the Roman Empire fell due to its own decadence, we will surely see the world implode on itself. I can wait for as long as it takes.

What about you?

 

[Deeje]

You can read the peer reviewed scientific papers yourself, and even repeat their experiments if you want. You don't have to rely on anyone. The evidence is still sitting right there in the real world.

Peer review....how much store do you put by it.....? Is it worthy of your faith?

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

You need to demonstrate that this is true independent of your claims.

I don't need to demonstrate anything. Creation is demonstration enough. When I say I see evidence for the hand of an all powerful Creator who demonstrates incredible ingenuity in his designs, that is exactly what I mean.

Let me demonstrate....

This is all the proof I need. I have eyes and a heart drawn to the beauty of these creatures. How can you think that these just designed themselves by undirected accident? Why do we find them beautiful?
We are the only ones on the planet who can appreciate beauty for its own sake....because we are designed that way.

If you have to go to the extreme of claiming that facts aren't facts, then what does that say about your position?

It says that I need more than man's word for something he cannot verify. If you cannot "prove" something, it can't BE a FACT....it is supposition, not to be confused with something provable. Science cannot prove that macro-evolution ever happened.
And that is an actual fact.

I think you are making quite the impression on the fence sitters, but not the one you want to make. When you see a person on one side of the debate who has to deny reality, it kind of says a lot.

You'd be surprised about the fence sitters....when they see the arguments presented this way, it stirs something in them. If you check out the kind of traffic these threads generate, you can see that a lot of people are reading what is written here. If even a few are seeing what I am seeing, then you are the ones denying reality. Reality is what you can see, not what you can think.