• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Demanding scientific evidence for the existence of God is ridiculous

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
How shall I describe thee?....let me count the ways.....

oh....just a collection of writings.....
Uh huh...

Humans reproduce after their kind, Dogs reproduce after their kind. I am still waiting for verifiable evidence for evolution.
Strictly speaking, you haven't really defined kind, since we can say that "eukaryotes" are a "kind", and since every living thing is a variation of a eukaryote, all species share a common ancestor since all the eukaryotes did was produce more eukaryotes - which is exactly what evolution describes.

So, let's say I were to present you with two animals you have never seen before. They are similar in some ways and dissimilar in other ways. How could you go about demonstrating whether or not these two animals belong in the same or different "kind"?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Silly Argument. We're not discussing finite entities here, we're talking about the Infinite. The term "He" is used to personify.
What does it matter whether it's a finite entity or an infinite entity or a magic elephant or a wooden crocodile? Referring to something as a "he" doesn't imply that its existence is known. That's an obviously ridiculous argument. If the use of "he" can be used to indicate some kind of knowledge of an infinite being, there's no reason why the same logic wouldn't also apply to fictional beings. It makes no difference what labels you ascribe to them.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Humans reproduce after their kind, Dogs reproduce after their kind. I am still waiting for verifiable evidence for evolution.
nature04338-f10.2.jpg


Figure 10 | Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Nature
 
Uh huh...


Strictly speaking, you haven't really defined kind, since we can say that "eukaryotes" are a "kind", and since every living thing is a variation of a eukaryote, all species share a common ancestor since all the eukaryotes did was produce more eukaryotes - which is exactly what evolution describes.

So, let's say I were to present you with two animals you have never seen before. They are similar in some ways and dissimilar in other ways. How could you go about demonstrating whether or not these two animals belong in the same or different "kind"?


Gen_1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Ok we can forget about the word kind bugs you that much.

My point is, a dog always births a dog an ape always births an ape.

By the way I'm still waiting for any one who believes in evolution to give me some verifiable evidence to prove evolution.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Domestic dogs evolved from a group of wolves that came into contact with European hunter-gatherers between 18,800 and 32,100 years ago and may have since died out.

This origin story comes from a new study that compares DNA from dozens of dogs and wolves, including 18 ancient fossils. The results, published today (November 14) in Science, provide the clearest picture yet of where, when, and how wild predators came to be man’s best friend.

“It really is a sea change from the little bits of fragmentary DNA that have been reported in the past,” said Gregor Larson from Durham University in the U.K., who was not involved in the study. “It includes really old material from a wide range of sites.”

The new paper follows two earlier studies that looked at the genetic signatures of domestication in dogs, and came to differing conclusions about canine origins. One group suggested that dogs were domesticated around 10,000 years ago during the Agricultural Revolution, when wolves started scavenging human scrap heaps. Another concluded that wolves and dogs split 32,000 years ago, somewhere in East Asia.

Both studies compared the genes of a wide variety of living dogs and wolves, but modern samples can be deceptive. Dogs and wolves diverged so recently that many of their genes have not had time to separate into distinct lineages. They have also repeatedly hybridized with each other, further confusing their genealogies.

To deal with these problems, a team led by Olaf Thalmann from the University of Turku in Finland analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 18 fossil canids. They compared these ancient sequences to those from 49 modern wolves and 77 modern dogs, and built a family tree that charts their relationships.

The tree conclusively pinpointed Europe as the major nexus of dog domestication. It identified four clades of modern dogs, which are all most closely related to ancient European canids rather than wolves from China or the Middle East. “We didn’t expect the ancestry to be so clearly defined,” Thalmann told The Scientist.

“This suggests that the population of wolves in Europe that gave rise to modern dogs may have gone extinct, which is plausible given how humans have wiped out wolves over the centuries,” he added.

According to this new tree, the largest clade of domestic dogs last shared a common ancestor 18,800 years ago, and collectively, they last shared a common ancestor with a wolf around 32,100 years ago. They must have been domesticated at some point during this window.

These molecular dates fit with fossil evidence. The oldest dog fossils come from Western Europe and Siberia, and are thought to be at least 15,000 years old. By contrast, those from the Middle East and East Asia are believed to be 13,000 years old, at most. “The archaeologists would be happy,” said Larson.

The dates also make it unlikely that dogs were domesticated during the Agricultural Revolution, which took place millennia later. Instead, they must have first associated with European hunter-gatherers. They may have assisted humans in bringing down large prey, or could simply have scavenged leftover carcasses. Either way, their association with humans grew stronger and stronger, until they eventually evolved into domestic dogs.

However, Thalmann acknowledged that his team’s analysis does not include any ancient DNA from the Middle East or China, nor nuclear DNA from any of the fossils. In other ancient DNA studies, nuclear DNA sequences have revised the evolutionary stories told by mitochondrial ones.

“Who knows what we would find if we had ancient canid samples from East Asia or elsewhere, or were successful in amplifying nuclear DNA from ancient canids,” said Adam Boyko from Cornell University, who was not involved in the study, via email. “But that shouldn't detract from the great work they were able to do here,” he added.

Larson cautioned that the paper is not the final word on canine origins. “It would be a mistake to jump and say that dogs were domesticated in Europe and not anywhere else,” he said. “We know pigs were domesticated independently in China and Turkey, so there’s no thinking that dog domestication had to happen in just one place.”

Indeed, Thalmann’s team showed that the famous Goyet dog—a 36,000 year old Belgian skull, supposedly belonging to the oldest known dog—is not directly ancestral to modern dogs. Instead, it represents an ancient sister lineage that died out. The same is true for other old specimens from Belgium and Russia’s Altai Mountains. “Maybe they were trial domestications that were not successful,” said Thalmann.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38279/title/Origin-of-Domestic-Dogs/
 

dust1n

Zindīq
My point is, a dog always births a dog an ape always births an ape.

Evolution is about the accumulation of genetic changes in an entire population over the course of tens to millions of generations.

Evolution is not a dog giving birth to a raccoon. To insinuate that this is the case shows a profound misunderstanding about what evolution is.

Regarding Apes:

"Apes" include:

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native toAfrica and Southeast Asia; they are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.

  • The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
  • The family Hominidae, known collectively as the great apes, include orangutans, gorillas,chimpanzees, and humans;[1][2][3][4] alternatively, this family clade is also known as thehominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genusPongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).[5][6]
Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding Dogs:

"The domestic dog is the most recently evolved species in the dog family Canidae, a group that has a long history spanning the last 50 million years (Myr). This history can be portrayed as a succession of phylogenetic hierarchies defined by DNA sequence information (Fig. 1) and is a necessary structure for understanding molecular data. Of note is that dogs are the earliest divergence in the superfamily Canoidae that includes bears, weasels, skunks, raccoons, and the pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses) (Fig. 1A). This kinship predicts dogs will share more molecular similarities with these taxa than with cats, mongooses, civets, or hyenas. However, because of the early divergence of dogs from all other carnivores, only slowly evolving regions will show substantial sequence similarities. A second important point is that the 35 species of extant canids are genetically very similar, having radiated from a common ancestor less than about 10 Mya. The recent radiation in a family that otherwise has a long evolutionary history suggests that genetic comparisons among extant canids will highlight rapidly evolving sequences and that they all may share uniquely evolved molecular structures such as SINE elements inherited from their recent common ancestor (Fanning et al. 1988; Kirkness et al. 2003) or rapidly evolving genes such as olfactory receptors, immune related genes, or reproductive proteins (e.g., Clark et al. 2003). In fact, although the dog family has a diverse chromosome complement ranging from 36 to 78 chromosomes, they all can be reconstructed through simple chromosome rearrangement from a common ancestral karyotype (Nash et al. 2001).



http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706/F1.medium.gif

Figure 1.

Evolutionary relationships of the dog. (A) The evolutionary relationships of carnivores based on DNA hybridization data. (Wayne et al. 1989). (B) A neighbor-joining tree of canids based on 2001 bp of mitochondrial DNA sequence (cytochrome b, cytochrome c oxidaes I, and cytochrome c oxidase II) (Wayne et al. 1997a). (C) A neighbor-joining tree of wolf (W) and dog (D) haplotypes based on 261 bp of control region I sequences (Vila et al. 1997). Dog haplotypes are grouped in four sequence clades, numbered I to IV.


Within the Canidae, three distinct phylogenetic groupings are apparent (Fig. 1B) (Wayne et al. 1987a,b, 1997b) as follows: (1) the fox-like canids, which include species closely related to the red fox (genus Vulpes), as well as the arctic and fennec fox (genus Alopex and Fennecus, respectively); (2) the wolf-like canids including dog, wolf, coyote, Ethiopian wolf or Simien jackal, and three other species of jackals (genus Canis), as well as the African hunting dog (genus Lycaon) and the dhole (genus Cuon); and (3) the South American canids including fox-sized canids such as the pampus fox, crab-eating fox, and small-eared dog (genus Pseudolopex, Lycolopex, Atelocynus) and the maned wolf (genusChrysocyon) and bushdog (genus Speothos). Additionally, there are several canids that have no close living relatives and define distinct evolutionary lineages such as the gray fox (genus Urocyon), the bat-eared fox (genus Otocyon), and the raccoon dog (genus Nyctereutes).

These phylogenetic relationships imply that the dog has several close relatives within its genus, in fact, all members of Canis can produce fertile hybrids and several species may have genomes that reflect hybridization in the wild (Wayne and Jenks 1991; Gottelli et al. 1994; Roy et al. 1996; Wilson et al. 2000; Adams et al. 2003). Furthermore, the wolf-like canids are grouped more closely with the South American canids and the red and gray fox are very distinct groups whose common ancestry with dogs extends to the beginning of the modern radiation. Consequently, molecular tools developed from the dog genome sequencing project are likely to be most applicable to the wolf-like canids. For instance, fewer than half of microsatellite primers developed in the dog amplify DNA in the gray fox (Goldstein et al. 1999).

The canine genome
 
Last edited:

Acintya_Ash

Bhakta
If the use of "he" can be used to indicate some kind of knowledge of an infinite being, there's no reason why the same logic wouldn't also apply to fictional beings. It makes no difference what labels you ascribe to them.
You're clearly missing/ignoring the context. The statement was made in regards to God, The Infinite, and we use "He" to ascribe its meaning from a personal standpoint. We're not attributing "He" to an entity here, but to the All Encompassing Substance. Fictional beings are entities, hence its a Meaningless Comparison!
 

Aiviu

Active Member
I am not a religious person . I am born pagan. No believe and no claim of evidence will reveal something that is true. Both are ridiculous in eyes of another. I am far from seeing the truth for you.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You're clearly missing/ignoring the context. The statement was made in regards to God, The Infinite, and we use "He" to ascribe its meaning from a personal standpoint. We're not attributing "He" to an entity here, but to the All Encompassing Substance. Fictional beings are entities, hence its a Meaningless Comparison!
And I think you're missing any form of basic logic. The argument made was that by referring to God as "he" must mean we have some knowledge of their existence. If this same logic cannot be applied to fictional entities, then why would it work for a supposedly infinite one? It's exactly the same logic.

It is to be known.
So, therefore, referring to Harry Potter, The Cat in the Hat and Gandalf as "he" must I must "know" they exist, right? Where is the difference in logic?

"He" simply means "referring to an individual with a male gender". We can refer to fictional, mythical or nonexistent things that we can describe as being male, so how does referring to God as "he" mean we in any way know they exist? Where is the logic in that?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Gen_1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
I don't give one fig in a baker's bin what the Bible says. I'm asking you to DEFINE kind. This isn't a definition.

Ok we can forget about the word kind bugs you that much.
I don't want you to stop using it, I want you to clearly and concisely define it. Can you do that by answering my question?

My point is, a dog always births a dog an ape always births an ape.
And eurkaryotes always produce eukaryotes, and since all living things are eukaryotes (or made of them) all life therefore shares a common ancestor. Since humans area kind of ape, it follows that apes DO always produce apes, but that variation exists within the classification of apes: one of which is humans.

By the way I'm still waiting for any one who believes in evolution to give me some verifiable evidence to prove evolution.
Observed instances of speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation

The fossil record:
Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer

Genetics:
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
 
I don't give one fig in a baker's bin what the Bible says. I'm asking you to DEFINE kind. This isn't a definition.


I don't want you to stop using it, I want you to clearly and concisely define it. Can you do that by answering my question?


And eurkaryotes always produce eukaryotes, and since all living things are eukaryotes (or made of them) all life therefore shares a common ancestor. Since humans area kind of ape, it follows that apes DO always produce apes, but that variation exists within the classification of apes: one of which is humans.


Observed instances of speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation

The fossil record:
Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer

Genetics:
Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

The problem is that you can't give us verifiable evidence to prove your claims or Theories..
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The problem is that you can't give us verifiable evidence to prove your claims or Theories..
I just linked you to three websites that explain in detail the multitude of evidence for evolution. Do you honestly intend for me to sum up over 150 years of rigorous scientific research in a single post?
 

dust1n

Zindīq
The problem is that you can't give us verifiable evidence to prove your claims or Theories..

There is a difference between an inability to provide you with verifiable evidence of evolution, and a refusal on your part to acknowledge, refute, or apparently even look at the provided verifiable evidence of evolution that was just now provided for you.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Top