Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Yes, every node that you see represents a common ancestor species between the two different branches.

I understand that. Listen, I haven't seen plants and animals interbreed, have you? YES, I know there are plants that eat flies, etc. Doesn't mean that they evolved by "natural selection."

 

[YoursTrue]

It is that simple in overview. There's no magic. It is supported by all the evidence and experiment. No one has an alternative explanation that fits the facts better.

The "magic" is life coming from a few cells and burgeoning out to lions, tigers, dogs, humans, plants, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

I hardly pretend to know the nature or will of God but I can see His creation is binary and logical so assume He is as well. One probably can still be omnipotent and omniscient but still constrained by the nature of reality. Whether the nature of reality can be changed by will or not is another question also far beyond my consideration. I'm sure you're right that any Creator can also affect that creation as pleased.

I truly don't know what you mean by binary, but I will say that from my understanding and belief, there is to be a "new earth" in which righteousness is the key. And will remain after a testing period, forever.
Isaiah 65:17-19
"For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be called to mind,
Nor will they come up into the heart.
18 So exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating.
For look! I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joy
And her people a cause for exultation.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and exult in my people;
No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe in God for several reasons. One is the magnificence of life. Another is that I didn't believe in God particularly when I went to the various churches or religions to observe. In fact, I thought some were nuts. But I won't go into detail now. So in line with that thought, when I studied the Bible diligently rather than listen to some crazed sermon or jargon without references or some comments from a soothsayer, I learned why we suffer, why animals and humans do not always get along, why the world has all these different religions, but importantly what God is going to do about the problems we face today. (Revelation 21:1-5) I leave the rest to you.

But that is really not a rational reason. And no, the Bible does not give a good reason for why we suffer. Are you talking about the Adam and Eve myth? In that story God is at fault if you understand it. It should be evidence against your God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess this could be a question for @Dan From Smithville -- do cockroaches have brains? Although I notice when I try to kill one he's faster than my hand. Too bad as far as I'm concerned. But does he know or does he sense that something might smash him?

Yes, insects, including cockroaches have a rudimentary brain. But it is a not a very complex brain compared to vertebrates, especially mammals. The insect brain is composed of a couple hundred thousand neurons. Ours has about 90 billion neurons.

They have senses; sight, sound, chemoreceptors, tactile receptors. They can detect movement or changes in light, like a shadow from your hand. The vibrations of a person walking or their smell. A cockroach probably doesn't know what is going to happen, but automatically responds to the optical data of a moving person or hand. There is no evidence they have a consciousness like we do.

Many species of cockroaches like to have pressure on the top and bottom sides of their bodies. This is called thigmotaxis. That is why you often find them in tight spaces.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the Bible has a better explanation as far as I am concerned, because the Common Element of all life on the earth is God's creative abilities.

Then why can't you find any evidence for such a God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that. Listen, I haven't seen plants and animals interbreed, have you? YES, I know there are plants that eat flies, etc. Doesn't mean that they evolved by "natural selection."

You cannot possibly think that is a good argument, now can you?

Do you know what speciation is in the first place? You claimed to understand evolution and you just demonstrated that you do not even understand speciation.

By the way, most creationists accept speciation.


And it is the evidence that tells us that life is the product of evolution. but that topic seems to scare you too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I truly don't know what you mean by binary, but I will say that from my understanding and belief, there is to be a "new earth" in which righteousness is the key. And will remain after a testing period, forever.
Isaiah 65:17-19
"For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be called to mind,
Nor will they come up into the heart.
18 So exult and be joyful forever in what I am creating.
For look! I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joy
And her people a cause for exultation.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and exult in my people;
No more will there be heard in her the sound of weeping or a cry of distress.”

That whole binary thing is nothing. Not worth focusing on. It is some imaging used as a diversion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Subduction Zone The Five Siblings of Ulas Family Who Walk on All Fours (unbelievable-facts.com)

What is this anomalous behavior supposed to show us?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are quite a few. Here is a very simple one aimed at children:

It gives a very light overview of all life.

Here is a more complex one that focuses only on butterflies:

Here is one from Wikipedia. It tries to show all life, but it does not have anywhere near the detail of the one above:

And here is a link to it enlarged quite a bit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Any questions about any of them?

Nice graphics. The top is probably going to be the most helpful here, given the lack of technical knowledge of many of the creationists and others posting here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More for @Subduction Zone or anyone that's interested -- This from the article linked above: "According to Uner Tan, an evolutionary biologist at Çukurova University Medical School in Adana, Turkey, the siblings show characteristics of our primate ancestors before they learned to walk upright." I like that -- "before they learned to walk upright." Before they learned. Gorillas learned to walk upright? Or was it hominids that learned to walk upright from -- some "Unknown Common Ancestor." The others just didn't learn. Maybe.

I'm not sure how much stock to put in an internet popular article about some strange condition that hasn't been fully characterized. The cause of this behavior may be unrelated to ancestral traits. I can't say. Not enough information, but not likely. There is no such thing as "backward evolution". Evolution doesn't move backwards. If this is the expression of an ancestral trait, it is an atavism, like a vestigial tail that a child is sometimes born with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is this anomalous behavior supposed to show us?

It is the result of a congenital birth defect:

Ulas family - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The "magic" is life coming from a few cells and burgeoning out to lions, tigers, dogs, humans, plants, etc.

You are presenting a straw man version of the origin of life. This has been explained to you when you used this example before.

You claim that life arose from a few cells, but cells are living things and indicate that life already existed.

I assume what your are trying to say is that once life came to exist, that modern living things from bacteria to complex, multi-celled eukaryotes evolved from that early life. The first living things falls under the study of abiogenesis. The evolution of diversity and relationships of living things comes under explanation by the theory of evolution.

No magic. Natural mechanisms.

You believe in magic and I support natural causes for the origin of life. Neither of us knows right now how God did it and can say nothing to that effect. But since he has provided us with evidence for natural causes only and no evidence of any actions by Him, then it most likely means that He used natural mechanisms. In a discussion of science, I would focus on the natural causes that can be identified, defined and studied. Since you want to mix belief with the evidence, that is the best conclusion that one can draw at this time from that perspective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is the result of a congenital birth defect:

Ulas family - Wikipedia

I am always dubious of those clickbait popular sites that seem to lead you down a rabbit hole rather than reporting anything useful.

It aggravates the tar out of me that the creationists mine that dross as if it is the ultimate source of valid information. I suppose they do that to find something that fits their preconceived views regardless of how uninformative it actually is. There often doesn't seem to be any ethics involved in weeding out manure like that.

Thanks for the link. I figured a reasonable explanation was the most likely. No dog-faced boy or wild man family.

With so much valid scientific information available to anyone with a computer, they continue to avoid it and go for clickbait instead. I wonder why? LOL!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You cannot possibly think that is a good argument, now can you?

Do you know what speciation is in the first place? You claimed to understand evolution and you just demonstrated that you do not even understand speciation.

By the way, most creationists accept speciation.


And it is the evidence that tells us that life is the product of evolution. but that topic seems to scare you too.

Wait. What? How did I miss the post you are responding to. That's awesome. Were gonna have to wrap it all up now and call the National Academy of Sciences and let them know evolution is through. That's the case cracker right there.

I haven't seen anything that indicates an understanding of the basic concepts involved in evolution from the creationist side of the argument.

I accept speciation and the rest of evolution too. Ultimately, I am a creationist. Just not one denying reality I suppose or claiming to force God into a box where He acted only as I believe. I'm pretty sure, I am not in charge of God and neither are they.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand that. Listen, I haven't seen plants and animals interbreed, have you? YES, I know there are plants that eat flies, etc. Doesn't mean that they evolved by "natural selection."

Crocobanana?

Is it your understanding that the theory of evolution claims that present life evolved from a mating of plants and animals? Can you show us where this is argued in any science?

Natural selection is supported by experiments. We see it in bacteria. We see it in insects. We see it in vertebrates.

And yes, I know. The bacteria are still bacteria. The insects are still insects. The vertebrates are still vertebrates. A trivial observation that is the expectation. If these things turned magically into something else, the theory of evolution could not explain that. But having heard this dozens of times, I know you know this.

What you have here are the beginnings of a straw man argument. I know you hate hearing that, but would you rather I lie about that fact?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then why can't you find any evidence for such a God?

I'm more interested in that evidence showing that portabellas are conscious. Where is that? I know it must be somewhere, because I was told that every experiment ever conducted demonstrates that the mushrooms on my pizza were conscious and changed their behavior to get on my pizza. Or something like that.

Have you seen that evidence?

I'll just look over here in the unsupported claim office.

 

[rational experiences]

There is no science in creation.

As law dictates what any condition is.

Says an intelligent human.

Science machine he uses is in law compressed in deep space as a cold melted metal seam. Exact.

Science.

As life is procreated by two adult humans first.

No type of scientific theist exists before their life.

So you aren't a humans consciousness discussing science as a beetle for example.

You however use what humans consciousness says is pretend. Absolutely non scientific as human behaviour.

The behaviour of a God began with men in terms what is science.

So God the man looks at all subjects he knows are far less in any body type presence. To edict harm to the bodies he studies.

As scientists are narcissistic and do a lot of cruel acts in pursuit my study as a human.

Is the human teaching who the cruel God is first...men in science.

As men do in fact say I'm dominion being and I'll do whatever I want.

However mass is dominion type and of no will changes whenever it does or is changing. Naturally.

No human control ever.

Is the lesson the scientist was meant to heed personally as a man's life...living by sex only returned healed and consciously evolved.

Sex in self presence now exact now isn't science it was God said science.

Mind says now belongs to sex.

Science ignores his own minds advice sex is now for anything as everything was already dead also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm more interested in that evidence showing that portabellas are conscious. Where is that? I know it must be somewhere, because I was told that every experiment ever conducted demonstrates that the mushrooms on my pizza were conscious and changed their behavior to get on my pizza. Or something like that.

Have you seen that evidence?

I'll just look over here in the unsupported claim office.

No, I was not even aware that there was such a claim. Some posters here hurt my brain after a while.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I was not even aware that there was such a claim. Some posters here hurt my brain after a while.

The claim, among many that are turned out and regularly abandoned here is that everything, or every living thing anyway--good grief I don't want to get that nonsense started as a thing--has consciousness and chooses its evolution. Something like that. I asked about the experiments that show that fungi have consciousness. I'm going to keep asking until the experiments and evidence are provided. I think that creationists and...others should be held to the same responsibilities we meet.