Different Opinions....Who is right?

[cladking]

The point of this thread is to make positions based on evidence and reasoning on the same level as belief without any evidence or reason.

The saddest part is you believe this and so do most people.

You believe anything based on belief is necessarily wrong and you believe in science without even examining the experiments that are SUPPOSED to underlie it. You believe extrapolation from experiment and observation is "good science" and beliefs that spring from these extrapolations are reality itself. Meanwhile you believe that the Bible is founded strictly in belief and superstition.

 

[Windwalker]

I guess it all boils down to what you believe, and why you believe it.

The integrity of our beliefs, is what makes them either in service of truth, or not. So evidence is part of that integrity of beliefs. If we deny evidence in order to preserve our beliefs, then those beliefs we cling to betray their lack integrity.

Nothing comes from nothing and "nature" is not of itself an intelligent entity. Nature is programmed, like everything else in the universe. It demonstrates order and functions according to its pre-determined programming...laws need a law maker.

There are several problems with these statements. First, it's reductionistic and materialistic, which is surprising. This is a popular neo-atheist belief, that biology is nothing more than a programmed machine and has no free will whatsoever.

If it is true that we are all nothing but programming, then from a religious perspective, there is no choice to live for God or not. It's all already been programmed into us, choices and all, and we have no actual responsibility for any of it. So from a theological perspective, I don't think you have really thought through adopting the view of a deterministic reality.

In reality however, while we do in fact run programs that have been put into us via culture, as well as genetics, we also have the ability to reprogram ourselves. We can change the directions the programs pushed us towards, by the act of the will. We can see the programs and choose to not be run by them. We can choose other programs to run. If this were not true, then why do you try to persuade people to follow the beliefs of your religion? Isn't that giving people a new program to run?

The programs that all of nature runs, which includes us and our programs we run, is really best understood as "habits". Nature finds a pattern that works for the needs at hand, and then simply repeats them over and over because they serve the organism. How evolution works is that when the environment in which these habits are being run changes, and those patterns of behaviors no longer suit the needs of the organism, it is built into the organism to adapt. That adaptation is done through a series of trials and errors, until a modification is found that now works. Once that is found, then it gets repeated and passed over to others to follow, In other words, nature programs itself.

These patterns and habits (programs), are not there at the beginning. They evolve as needed over time. If they were there at the beginning, you would have a static universe. But what you see is one that is constantly changing and adapting. The evidence for this is overwhelmingly observable and measurable. In other words, its real.

As a related note, when you speak of the Creation, do you imagine it as some singular event that happens however many of thousands, or billions of years ago? That's a common conception that many Christians assume. In reality, Creation is "made new every morning", poetically speaking. Creation is not an event of the past, but a continual activity from the beginning, all the way down, each second since, until today. Reality is living and dynamic, not static and concrete.

Every program that involves the transmission of information has to be authored by an intelligent mind and carried out according to the programmer's instructions.

Then why does the program change? Unless you believe God designed it to be self-programming, and self-adapting? If so, that's an argument that in more consistent with the reality of nature in what we can clearly see and demonstrate that it in fact does do. Do you accept that view, that God designed nature to figure out how to survive using the tools it has in order to adapt and modify itself and its own programming?

For something to demonstrate design, it has to have a designer...where in human experience is that not so? Design denotes purpose...purpose requires intelligence and intelligence requires a mind and an ability to carry out what is required.

Hence why I say nature is inherently intelligent. It self-modifies. It self-designs. A simple example. Have you ever changed anything in your life through a series of thought experiments and a decision? Once you did, did you then change your habits and reprogram your behaviors to become a different person? Did God do that for you, or did you choose that?

If you chose that, you designed yourself into becoming something different than what you were previously. An overly simplistic example of how nature reprograms itself, but it serves the purpose.

I see creation as part of the Creator's overall purpose.....the reason why anything exists. If there is no reason for why anything exists, then there is no hope of anything getting any better. We as a species are on a downward spiral and if the Creator does not halt this destructive process, then he is opposing the purpose of his own creation...and his first purpose for this planet and the living things upon it will go unfulfilled. As the Almighty, I believe that he will never let that happen.

I don't see where accepting evolution is a fact, which it clearly is, in any way diminishes the "purpose" of creation, or that God is the Source of all reality and its natural systems. Nor do I see that creation is a "downward spiral". It most certainly is not. Evolution is upwards, not downwards. We didn't start at the top, and fall backwards. Evolution starts at the ground, and builds complexity, upwards and outwards. It reaches for survival, not for death.

Now, if you're talking about human societies and cultures tending towards self-destruction, I think that is an overly simplistic, and incorrect understanding. There is always a push-pull dynamic when it comes to human evolution, and there are times where we push ourselves to the brink of destruction, in order to wake up, and make the choice to reprogram ourselves in order to survive. We are not drawn to death. We are drawn towards Life. But somethings, in order to make that change, we have to destroy that which hinders that, like systems of greed which create inequalities and suffering.

Why do you think we are here?

Because God is Love. Why does any mother create a child? As a tool for herself to become her slave, or as a gift of Love for Love's sake? We are here, because God is Love. Love creates. It's up to us what we do with that gift. We can reprogram ourselves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It just makes me smile to see evolutionists divorce themselves from any discussion about how life originated as if the more important question is how it changed once it got here....

No, we divorce ourselves from that SEPARATE AND DISTINCT discussion because it has nothing whatever to do with evolution. It doesn't help, when discussing your prescription for eye-glasses, to focus on the price of tea in China.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You just did. I was playing off that to make a point. That you didn't address.

You want to credit God for the beautiful things like sunsets and pretty birds and whatnot but not with the ugly things like cancer, COVID-19, worms that eat through children's eyes, etc. How does that work? Or are you trying to say that the ugly things are actually beautiful?

I will curse God for cancer when you praise Him for sunsets.

 

[nPeace]

How do you decide what is true and what needs' interpreting' in the bible?

I believe what is true, is in the Bible itself, and the Bible provides it's own interpretation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The saddest part is you believe this and so do most people.

You believe anything based on belief is necessarily wrong and you believe in science without even examining the experiments that are SUPPOSED to underlie it. You believe extrapolation from experiment and observation is "good science" and beliefs that spring from these extrapolations are reality itself. Meanwhile you believe that the Bible is founded strictly in belief and superstition.

Nope, not the saddest part...the best part.

If you don't believe that observation and extrapolation and experiment are as useful as the Bible, then try this: go get bitten by a poisonous snake, then pray to a bronze snake on a stick and see if it saves you. And I''ll try anti-venin, made by that process you decry. Then, whichever of us survives, can write it up here for all to see.

 

[McBell]

Nope, not the saddest part...the best part.

If you don't believe that observation and extrapolation and experiment are as useful as the Bible, then try this: go get bitten by a poisonous snake, then pray to a bronze snake on a stick and see if it saves you. And I''ll try anti-venin, made by that process you decry. Then, whichever of us survives, can write it up here for all to see.

Survival of the fittest....

 

[Deeje]

The integrity of our beliefs, is what makes them either in service of truth, or not. So evidence is part of that integrity of beliefs. If we deny evidence in order to preserve our beliefs, then those beliefs we cling to betray their lack integrity.

Who is denying “evidence”? Not me. I am denying what masquerades as “evidence” in theoretical science. I am showing that by their own admission, science is interpreting their findings with a colossal amount of suggestion that most people overlook...or choose (in their haste to disbelieve) to ignore.
If they have to use expressions like “might have” or “could have” or “might not have”.....do you not detect the uncertainty of their interpretation? How can any of that conjecture become a fact, when the next 'discovery' could turn it all on its ear?
As has been mentioned already....if a theory is proven, it ceases to be a theory, and then becomes a fact.

There are several problems with these statements. First, it's reductionistic and materialistic, which is surprising. This is a popular neo-atheist belief, that biology is nothing more than a programmed machine and has no free will whatsoever.

If that is how you interpreted my post then, you have misunderstood me. I said ‘nature is programmed’.....I did not include human nature in that statement. As I have mentioned many times, humans alone have free will and any ‘natural instincts’ that we may possess can be countered or overridden by the application of free will. We alone have the ability to go against our nature. It is why the word “inhuman” exists.

If it is true that we are all nothing but programming, then from a religious perspective, there is no choice to live for God or not. It's all already been programmed into us, choices and all, and we have no actual responsibility for any of it. So from a theological perspective, I don't think you have really thought through adopting the view of a deterministic reality.

From a theological perspective I have taken into consideration that God's word is way more reliable than man's.....which is why humans alone are accountable. As intelligent creatures who have a concept of 'past, present and future', we can use our unique faculty of imagination to project present conduct into the future to see possible consequences of our actions...both good and bad. That is why God does not judge any other creation, but us. Those who possess God's moral qualities are accountable for how they exercise them. Its not like we don't come with an instruction manual.

In reality however, while we do in fact run programs that have been put into us via culture, as well as genetics, we also have the ability to reprogram ourselves. We can change the directions the programs pushed us towards, by the act of the will. We can see the programs and choose to not be run by them. We can choose other programs to run. If this were not true, then why do you try to persuade people to follow the beliefs of your religion? Isn't that giving people a new program to run?

I might disagree with you on that point, but only because I believe that we are who we are regardless of what culture or genetics we had at birth. A kind and generous person is not made, but is born with that personality. It might get buried by circumstance, but it was always there. God sees the heart, not the actions....he sees the motivation, not just the performance. He can strip off a layer of unacceptable behavior, put there by circumstance that may mask the real person, but he can’t make “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. He will not attract anyone unless he sees a good and genuine heart in the first place. (John 6:44; 65) The apostle Paul is a prime example.

As a related note, when you speak of the Creation, do you imagine it as some singular event that happens however many of thousands, or billions of years ago? That's a common conception that many Christians assume. In reality, Creation is "made new every morning", poetically speaking. Creation is not an event of the past, but a continual activity from the beginning, all the way down, each second since, until today. Reality is living and dynamic, not static and concrete.

If science can establish that the universe is the product of one almighty “explosion” of unimaginable energy in the dim dark past, then why would I not see that in the opening verse of Genesis 1? I see the creation of 'the heavens and the earth' as a separate act from what came after it.

That it took place millions or even billions of years ago, still does not argue with Genesis. The “days” were clearly not 24 hour periods and they began with earth's preparation and was followed by the introduction of life. So if creation was a lengthy process then science is not arguing with the Bible, but with a YEC interpretation of it.

God carefully prepared this one planet for habitation and slowly, perhaps over many millions of years, he introduced lifeforms in millions of varieties. Most likely microscopic life at first, which is not mentioned in scripture. The first living things on earth, according to Genesis were various forms of vegetation. In order to break down vegetation, bacteria are required. By the time living creatures arrived on the scene, the atmosphere, providing a breathable mixture of gases, vegetation and water supply were ready and waiting to feed and sustain them. All quite logical IMV.

 

[Deeje]

Continued....

Then why does the program change? Unless you believe God designed it to be self-programming, and self-adapting? If so, that's an argument that in more consistent with the reality of nature in what we can clearly see and demonstrate that it in fact does do. Do you accept that view, that God designed nature to figure out how to survive using the tools it has in order to adapt and modify itself and its own programming?

What program changes in nature?
It has been brilliantly designed to adapt and survive, which it did quite well long before humans came on the scene. Nature has all the tools necessary to perpetuate itself and living things, as God intended. But humans alone are not part of “nature”.....we are unique......we have free will and can make choices, because of being made in the “image and likeness” of the Creator. Our purpose here is to be the appointed caretakers of this planet and custodians of its living creatures.....by giving us his qualities and free will, I believe that God intended that we be his representatives here...forever.
Can you tell me what other purpose there could be for humans being so different to all other creatures?

Hence why I say nature is inherently intelligent. It self-modifies. It self-designs. A simple example. Have you ever changed anything in your life through a series of thought experiments and a decision? Once you did, did you then change your habits and reprogram your behaviors to become a different person? Did God do that for you, or did you choose that?

Why can we alone do that? What purpose is served by being able to decide, after contemplating the outcome of different choices, to follow a certain course? We have the option of reprogramming our behaviors...but not necessarily our nature. We are the person we are born to be. We are all the product of our gene pool and before we are conceived, God does not decide who will live and who won't. Nothing is pre-determined except the outworking of God's first purpose to have this earth filled with caring and unselfish custodians, fully equipped to handle any unexpected event. That purpose will go ahead with us or without us....so we get to choose God, and if we do, he will evaluate what is in our hearts and then he will choose us to become citizens of his incoming Kingdom.

I don't see where accepting evolution is a fact, which it clearly is, in any way diminishes the "purpose" of creation, or that God is the Source of all reality and its natural systems.

That is a shame because evolution is no more a "fact" than any other theory. To eliminate the Creator from his own creation is to insult him and to detract from all the marvelously designed mechanisms that he put in place for each carefully created life form....who all have their place in his arrangement.....even the ones whose existence we don't yet understand. Its a bit like medical science telling us that tonsils and appendixes were useless bits of leftovers from evolution......and now saying how vital they are as part of the immune defense for the body. Or the pelvic bones in whales thought to be vestiges of legs in their early evolutionary life...now confirmed to be vital for mating. Science can be dead wrong.

Nor do I see that creation is a "downward spiral". It most certainly is not. Evolution is upwards, not downwards. We didn't start at the top, and fall backwards. Evolution starts at the ground, and builds complexity, upwards and outwards. It reaches for survival, not for death.

If you cannot see that the human race has fallen way short of the Creator's first purpose then I feel sorry for the blindness that seems to have overtaken you. Creation started at the top and fell backwards according to the Bible....that is what I see in the world......evolution started at the bottom and worked its way up? If you think that mankind is displaying any of the qualities with which God first endowed them, then I shudder to think what you believe the future will be like? Look where we are....
Where the heck is your world headed? I cannot see anything but a grim future if things continue as they are....we have idiots running the show!

 

[rational experiences]

If you believe in the Big bang, then why is it that asteroid stones release gases, claimed to be the Saviour of Earth as a planet that historically was a natural evolving body O, was gases and became stone also?

It proves that the Sun is a variant body.

You then tell self that out of space owns variant bodies....then build machines to say told you so.

Machines only taken from the matter/mass of a stone planet.

Does that then determine to any scientist who is doing science, well my machine is only taken from the evolved mass to do science and then do not do any other form of converting science?

For that would be my own conclusion of evidence to self in science.

 

[Deeje]

The building blocks of life (eg, amino acids for RNA, lipids for cell walls) are
naturally occuring. There are a vast number of opportunities for life to arise,
considering the age of the Earth, its size, & the number of environments.
For life to arise spontaneously....it looks quite plausible.

Building blocks are just that. They are components in any construction, no matter how small or large.
Who made the components? They have to exist or no construction can take place. Did they just come out of nowhere?

If I have all the components of a computer and I put them together in the correct sequence so that all the parts are connected and ready to perform their intended function....but if I have no power source...what use is it? A pot plant stand perhaps?

If I have a power source but I don't plug it in, am I any better off?

Its one thing to have a physical body.....but what makes it "alive"? Can you tell me how anything "lives"? Can science even define "life"?

Science cannot give life to a blade of grass....all it can do is pass life on from previously existing grass. They can even manipulate its genetic structure to produce a new strain...but they can't create living grass from nothing.

In science everyone knows that "life comes from pre-existing life"....there is never a case where this is not observed....so why in this unique instance does science dare to step out of its own established laws to suggest that life originally did not come from "pre-existing life"? That life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, equipped with the wherewithals to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever existed?
Now that's a fairy story.....to my mind, it requires more faith to believe that, with no absolute proof, than it does to believe in the pre-existing "Living Being" who created it.

That is what is logical to me. Science does not replace God for me.....science enhances my appreciation for his creative genius.

In all of his evolutionary musings, Darwin had the most difficulty with the design and operation of the eyes in various species. How did so many creatures develop sight in such an amazing variety of eyes. Fish eyes, bird eyes, animal eyes, insect eyes...human eyes?

To assume that these are just accidents of evolution is to ignore a lot of extraordinary and precise design IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

Building blocks are just that. They are components in any construction, no matter how small or large.
Who made the components? They have to exist or no construction can take place. Did they just come out of nowhere?

They appear to be among the many common naturally occurring compounds

If I have all the components of a computer and I put them together in the correct sequence so that all the parts are connected and ready to perform their intended function....but if I have no power source...what use is it? A pot plant stand perhaps?

You'd only be trying this a few times.
The building blocks of life would be in close proximity in many conditions
in many locations over hundreds of millions of years, thus increasing the
likelihood of forming life by mere chemical interaction.

If I have a power source but I don't plug it in, am I any better off?

Moderate ultraviolet light would be a useful energy source for abiogenesis.

Its one thing to have a physical body.....but what makes it "alive"? Can you tell me how anything "lives"? Can science even define "life"?

It's an evolving definition, which could include synthetic forms soon enuf.
In the context of abiogenesis, I'd say it's a self-replicating biological system.
But I'm sure someone more knowledgeable would have a better definition for you.

Science cannot give life to a blade of grass....all it can do is pass life on from previously existing grass. They can even manipulate its genetic structure to produce a new strain...but they can't create living grass from nothing.

Yet.
Science has its limitations.

In science everyone knows that "life comes from pre-existing life"....there is never a case where this is not observed....so why in this unique instance does science dare to step out of its own established laws to suggest that life originally did not come from "pre-existing life"? That life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, equipped with the wherewithals to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever existed?

We haven't observed historical abiogenesis because it was before our time.
But neither has anyone observed an alternative.

Now that's a fairy story.....to my mind, it requires more faith to believe that, with no absolute proof, than it does to believe in the pre-existing "Living Being" who created it.

Well, it beats supernatural explanations, which cannot be tested, & have no explanatory power.

That is what is logical to me. Science does not replace God for me.....science enhances my appreciation for his creative genius.

Even for many scientists, science doesn't replace God, Allah, Cthulhu, Thor, Lakshmi, etc.

In all of his evolutionary musings, Darwin had the most difficulty with the design and operation of the eyes in various species. How did so many creatures develop sight in such an amazing variety of eyes. Fish eyes, bird eyes, animal eyes, insect eyes...human eyes?

To assume that these are just accidents of evolution is to ignore a lot of extraordinary and precise design IMO.

The intermediate steps between mere sensing of heat & an advanced eye is interesting.
But such steps aren't "accidents". There's a lot to it.
A basic video about it....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Building blocks are just that. They are components in any construction, no matter how small or large.
Who made the components? They have to exist or no construction can take place. Did they just come out of nowhere?

If I have all the components of a computer and I put them together in the correct sequence so that all the parts are connected and ready to perform their intended function....but if I have no power source...what use is it? A pot plant stand perhaps?

If I have a power source but I don't plug it in, am I any better off?

Its one thing to have a physical body.....but what makes it "alive"? Can you tell me how anything "lives"? Can science even define "life"?

Science cannot give life to a blade of grass....all it can do is pass life on from previously existing grass. They can even manipulate its genetic structure to produce a new strain...but they can't create living grass from nothing.

In science everyone knows that "life comes from pre-existing life"....there is never a case where this is not observed....so why in this unique instance does science dare to step out of its own established laws to suggest that life originally did not come from "pre-existing life"? That life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, equipped with the wherewithals to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever existed?
Now that's a fairy story.....to my mind, it requires more faith to believe that, with no absolute proof, than it does to believe in the pre-existing "Living Being" who created it.

That is what is logical to me. Science does not replace God for me.....science enhances my appreciation for his creative genius.

In all of his evolutionary musings, Darwin had the most difficulty with the design and operation of the eyes in various species. How did so many creatures develop sight in such an amazing variety of eyes. Fish eyes, bird eyes, animal eyes, insect eyes...human eyes?

To assume that these are just accidents of evolution is to ignore a lot of extraordinary and precise design IMO.

You have a lot of say and no substance. What use is that? No use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Building blocks are just that. They are components in any construction, no matter how small or large.
Who made the components? They have to exist or no construction can take place. Did they just come out of nowhere?

If I have all the components of a computer and I put them together in the correct sequence so that all the parts are connected and ready to perform their intended function....but if I have no power source...what use is it? A pot plant stand perhaps?

If I have a power source but I don't plug it in, am I any better off?

Its one thing to have a physical body.....but what makes it "alive"? Can you tell me how anything "lives"? Can science even define "life"?

Science cannot give life to a blade of grass....all it can do is pass life on from previously existing grass. They can even manipulate its genetic structure to produce a new strain...but they can't create living grass from nothing.

In science everyone knows that "life comes from pre-existing life"....there is never a case where this is not observed....so why in this unique instance does science dare to step out of its own established laws to suggest that life originally did not come from "pre-existing life"? That life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, equipped with the wherewithals to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever existed?
Now that's a fairy story.....to my mind, it requires more faith to believe that, with no absolute proof, than it does to believe in the pre-existing "Living Being" who created it.

That is what is logical to me. Science does not replace God for me.....science enhances my appreciation for his creative genius.

In all of his evolutionary musings, Darwin had the most difficulty with the design and operation of the eyes in various species. How did so many creatures develop sight in such an amazing variety of eyes. Fish eyes, bird eyes, animal eyes, insect eyes...human eyes?

To assume that these are just accidents of evolution is to ignore a lot of extraordinary and precise design IMO.

I appreciate that you provide all these examples in your posts, but they are not all that necessary. You convinced me you haven't a clue about science, evidence and theories a long time ago.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, not the saddest part...the best part.

If you don't believe that observation and extrapolation and experiment are as useful as the Bible, then try this: go get bitten by a poisonous snake, then pray to a bronze snake on a stick and see if it saves you. And I''ll try anti-venin, made by that process you decry. Then, whichever of us survives, can write it up here for all to see.

It is also sad that he is wrong about my views specifically. On a bright note, however, he is consistently wrong. He has that going for him.

 

[McBell]

I appreciate that you provide all these examples in your posts, but they are not all that necessary. You convinced me you haven't a clue about science, evidence and theories a long time ago.

Ah, the more that is thrown against the wall, the more likely something will stick.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, the more that is thrown against the wall, the more likely something will stick.

It often seems as if that is part of what is going on.

 

[Tiberius]

It just makes me smile to see evolutionists divorce themselves from any discussion about how life originated as if the more important question is how it changed once it got here....

How life got here changes the whole ball game.

Please give a specific example of how.

Did you read what you quoted....?

"The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all"

"Evolution of Multicellular Life Might Have Been Easier Than We Thought"

LOL "might not have been"?....."might have been"? Scientific terms are they?

From your first cited link....."Single celled organisms appeared at least 3.5 billion years ago, and maybe as early as 4.28 billion years ago. But somewhere along the way there was a shift and multicellular organisms began to appear. Exactly when this happened is a topic of much debate. . . . .Multicellularity involves quite a shift: instead of each single cell out for itself, cells living together in one organism must divide tasks and share energy and resources. Exactly how organisms achieved this transition has been elusive, though it was generally assumed to involve some kind of rare and complex genetic event. But increasing evidence suggests that it might have been easier than we thought."

From your second link...."Billions of years ago, life crossed a threshold. Single cells started to band together, and a world of formless, unicellular life was on course to evolve into the riot of shapes and functions of multicellular life today, from ants to pear trees to people."
This is said with such conviction....yet it goes on to say...."The gulf between unicellular and multicellular life seems almost unbridgeable. A single cell's existence is simple and limited. Like hermits, microbes need only be concerned with feeding themselves; neither coordination nor cooperation with others is necessary. . . . .Evolutionary biologists still debate what drove simple aggregates of cells to become more and more complex, leading to the wondrous diversity of life today. But embarking on that road no longer seems so daunting. "We are beginning to get a sense of how it might have occurred," says Ben Kerr, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "You take what seems to be a major step in evolution and make it a series of minor steps."

How do you do that? With the power of suggestion.....making what seems to be impossible......probable.

So you claim that there's no evidence about how multicellularity appeared. I give links describing how it may have happened and you think that somehow supports your position?

What the...?

The difference in the mechanism is the fact that no new "kinds" of creatures are ever produced by adaptation.

Given that creationists can't give a useable definition of what a "kind" is, your argument seems irrelevant.

Give me a definition of "new kind" to use and we'll go from there.

The Peppered Moth is often used to demonstrate how evolution works.....the moth transformed itself into a color more closely resembling the darkened bark of the trees that it called home, blackened by coal fires....but as soon as the pollution problem was rectified, the moths returned to their natural color. At no stage did the moth become a new creature. Adaptation is NOT macro-evolution. Darwin did not see new creatures, but simply different varieties of the same creatures that existed on the Mainland. No matter how much time elapsed, they would not morph into something else.

Wow. wonderful strawman here!

You look without leaping and assume that's the argument I'm going to make, and then you assume that you've disproved me! HA!

I am not going to present it as an example of evolution. However, it is an example of natural selection. But that doesn't mean that I think that the moths evolved into a different species and then evolved back.

In speciation experiments, regardless of whether the newly adapted species could interbreed with the original or not, at no time did the subjects of the experiment become a new creature....just a new variety of the old one.

What do you mean exactly when you say, "new variety of the old one"? Can you give an example?

The "mechanism" does not, and never would, transform a four legged land dweller the size of a dog, into a whale about a third the size of a football field....let alone a microscopic single cell into a dinosaur the size of a three story building.....there is no proof that such a transition is even possible, let alone likely. I really don't think that people truly understand the power of suggestion......propagandists do and so does the advertising industry. Why do you think they get celebrities to promote products?

Please describe for me what mechanism prevents that.

You can take any scientist's evaluation of the fossil record and see how many assumptions are made about relationships between creatures based on nothing but speculation about minor similarities.

Care to give an example?

LOL...spoken like a true evolutionist..... .....how does that go again....?

So it seems that you CAN understand logical fallacies.

I have to wonder why you insist on using them yourself then.

 

[Deeje]

They appear to be among the many common naturally occurring compounds

There are many naturally occurring compounds...where did they come from?
How many of them are alive?

You'd only be trying this a few times.
The building blocks of life would be in close proximity in many conditions
in many locations over hundreds of millions of years, thus increasing the
likelihood of forming life by mere chemical interaction.

A likelihood?....who said? Science can make all manner of suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those billions of years ago when no one was there to observe any of it....I don't buy what they are selling. You can if it suits your worldview.

Moderate ultraviolet light would be a useful energy source for abiogenesis.

Again...who said? Ultraviolet light also came from somewhere.....do you know its origins? The sun delivers it but where did the sun come from? Its a material thing that had to have an origin. We know it exists because it’s there in the sky every day....but how did it get there? Cause and effect means everything we see has a cause. We can’t always see the cause but we see the effect. Creation and is the effect.....the Creator is the cause.....that to me is logical.

In the context of abiogenesis, I'd say it's a self-replicating biological system.
But I'm sure someone more knowledgeable would have a better definition for you.

It is self replicating...but who provided the program for that? Who provided the means for every living this on this planet to produce replicas of themselves.....'according to their kinds'? How many ways are there to reproduce? Each has its own mechanism....all brilliantly designed. Fertilisation of eggs......but how many ways are there to accomplish it.....did each have to evolve separately?

Science has its limitations.

You'd hardly know that listening to them.....

We haven't observed historical abiogenesis because it was before our time.
But neither has anyone observed an alternative.

Obviously those who say such things have never encountered God in their lives. He is actually more real to me than you are.....I can honestly say that never in my life when I have had obeyed his direction, have I been sorry or disappointed......that only happened if I ignored his counsel.

Well, it beats supernatural explanations, which cannot be tested, & have no explanatory power.

It might beat supernatural explanations......but what is a supernatural explanation exactly? It seems perfectly natural to me for a Creator to create.....does science really know what is....”out there”? It cannot dismiss the possible existence of a superior power just because it hasn’t invented a test for him yet.

The intermediate steps between mere sensing of heat & an advanced eye is interesting.
But such steps aren't "accidents". There's a lot to it.
A basic video about it....

IMO, the video is all conjecture.....it’s an explanation of what scientists think “may have” happened, but it’s not provable. Eyes are incredibly complex......no undirected chance could produce such a marvel of design.....let alone a brain that can interpret what the eyes see and what the ears hear, what a nose smells, what taste buds taste, and what skin feels......then there are the complex internal organs that keep us breathing, perform oxygen exchange and digest food. All separate processes that are integrated in one body. No way these could be the product of undirected chance, to my way of thinking....but you are free to believe it if you wish....

 

[Deeje]

Please give a specific example of how.

How the ball game changes? If the existence of a Creator is proven, (as I believe it will be) then the theory of evolution will evaporate into thin air....along with all who thought they could eliminate God from his own creation.

So you claim that there's no evidence about how multicellularity appeared. I give links describing how it may have happened and you think that somehow supports your position?

Just the word "appeared" is like magic, don't you think? Isn't that one of the main reasons for suggesting that God didn't create anything because its like believing in magic? You apparently have your own believers in magic.

Given that creationists can't give a useable definition of what a "kind" is, your argument seems irrelevant.

"Kinds" remain constant. Lines cannot be crossed. "Family", "genus" and "species" apply to "kinds" in this graph.... but what is above those designations is misleading to say the least. Not all carnivores belong to the same family, nor do all mammals fit the description of carnivores.

Only creatures of the same "kind" can interbreed and even then there is a genetic barrier that prevents crossbreeds from being fertile. Horses and donkeys produce mules which are sterile. Mules are the end of that line. Same with lions and tigers....their offspring are invariably sterile. Their own genetics set up the roadblocks to change. These would not breed naturally in the wild anyway. Species naturally stick to their own kind.

Give me a definition of "new kind" to use and we'll go from there.

Well, the four legged furry critter that is supposed to be an early ancestor of a whale is a good example. One "kind" cannot transform into another "kind" of creature. (see below) A land dweller did not morph into a whale.

You look without leaping and assume that's the argument I'm going to make, and then you assume that you've disproved me! HA!

I am not going to present it as an example of evolution. However, it is an example of natural selection. But that doesn't mean that I think that the moths evolved into a different species and then evolved back.

The Peppered moth is often given as a classic example of evolution. Its number one on this list...
8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse
This is adaptation.....not evolution.

What do you mean exactly when you say, "new variety of the old one"? Can you give an example?

What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was not new creatures but simply new varieties of creatures that existed on the mainland which had adapted to a different environment and a change in food supply.
The iguanas were still very identifiable as iguanas but adapted to a marine environment and food supply. The tortoises were still tortoises, and the finches were all still varieties of finches.

Their family relationship to the finch family had not changed and never would have. All that was altered with the finches was their beaks due to a different food supply.

Please describe for me what mechanism prevents that.

Adaptation has never taken a creature outside of its taxonomy....not ever. The mechanism that prevents this is inbuilt. It is designed to keep the "kinds" separated. On land or in the oceans, we see creatures who are only attracted to their own kind for reproduction. Artificial matings can produce variations in related species, but not new "kinds".

Care to give an example?

Whale evolution is full of conjecture suggesting that creatures in their graph are somehow an evolutionary chain....then denying that they are.

"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

The relationship is based on an ear bone that "strongly resembles" a whales.

One thing they neglected to include on their graph is the relative sizes of their links....

If that is not interpreting evidence to fit their theory, I don't know what is....a small, furry land dwelling animal is supposed to be the ancestor of a gigantic whale.....how is that not deliberately misleading?