Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Now this is a strawman that I have encountered before....what makes you think we Bible believers hate science?

Science is after all, the study of what God created whether you believe that he created it or not, really makes no difference. There is no magic.

Real science is appreciated and fascinating.....it shows us many things about creation that would otherwise go unnoticed, like the microscopic world...

Who knew that these existed just a few hundred years ago. Who knew that snowflakes are so beautiful, with no two the same?

It isn't science that we hate....its the lies perpetuated by science to support a theory that has no real evidence to back it up. Real science can be backed up with more than suggestion.....theoretical science just needs an idea that everybody likes and a bandwagon to jump on. "Evidence" will soon follow.....not PROOF, but specifically interpreted 'evidence'. Once it takes hold, it is bullied into people by the likes of Dawkins and his ilk.....anyone who disagrees is made to feel stupid.
Science has as much real factual evidence for evolution as I have for my Creator. Evolution is as based on "belief" as religion is....it just pretends not to be, relying on adaptation to furnish the idea that it can go way beyond their ability to test it.

Science does not KNOW for certain how anything came from nothing, let alone how an amoeba somehow transformed itself over millions of years into something the size of a three story building.

From all of your posts I have read, the only reasonable conclusion I can make is that you hate science. You replace it with doctrine, irrational claims and conspiracy theories. I cannot recall finding much that indicates even an interest in understanding it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now this is a strawman that I have encountered before....what makes you think we Bible believers hate science?

Science is after all, the study of what God created whether you believe that he created it or not, really makes no difference. There is no magic.

Real science is appreciated and fascinating.....it shows us many things about creation that would otherwise go unnoticed, like the microscopic world...

Who knew that these existed just a few hundred years ago. Who knew that snowflakes are so beautiful, with no two the same?

It isn't science that we hate....its the lies perpetuated by science to support a theory that has no real evidence to back it up. Real science can be backed up with more than suggestion.....theoretical science just needs an idea that everybody likes and a bandwagon to jump on. "Evidence" will soon follow.....not PROOF, but specifically interpreted 'evidence'. Once it takes hold, it is bullied into people by the likes of Dawkins and his ilk.....anyone who disagrees is made to feel stupid.
Science has as much real factual evidence for evolution as I have for my Creator. Evolution is as based on "belief" as religion is....it just pretends not to be, relying on adaptation to furnish the idea that it can go way beyond their ability to test it.

Science does not KNOW for certain how anything came from nothing, let alone how an amoeba somehow transformed itself over millions of years into something the size of a three story building.

What I find of great amusement is the contrast between your dismissal of the science of biological evolution as nothing and the immense quantity of time and posting you devote to that dismissal. Interesting how nothing has you so stirred up to surrender so much of your life to it.

 

[rational experiences]

The science argument is a science argument in rational human mentality.

Science claims that other worldly Sun UFO radiation metals began life on Earth as their string theories. Yet today bringing that radiation mass into our atmosphere is quantified in God science theories....for it is also science, just old scientific meanings and symbolism, attacks bio life and health.

Which proves that UFO cold metal radiation never owned the creation of life by string theorist sciences.

Which was in natural history the Satanist science occult theories versus God natural biological sciences.

Today it is all just a mish mash of arguing using human title to own an argument.

Yet basically the origin of the argument against scientific destruction causation was between the a theist Satanist/Sun theorist versus God natural sciences.

Today God sciences agreed with the theist in natural evolution DATA of living support of life by a detailed description of evidence that says we advise that all life is linked in a God theme. And that is rational advice. The irrational part of the advice is when a human tries to link it into a theory.

When all natural humans own their own age/life bio conscious self body who one day dies and might live for 100 years. As the life equals, I am conscious as a life advisor review.

And what you argue over is what you claim is relative to natural history, when natural history says, all the bodies and information exist factually right at this moment allowing you to study it. Yet in actuality who do any of you think you are claiming you can string information together, if not acting on behalf of occult destruction itself.

As a claim to a string to a UFO radiation mass metal body as a Creator.

Being what the God scientist theist argues against. For that cold metal gets burnt when it comes into burning atmospheric gases. What Satanist theism is about....our life destruction due to the arrogance of a human psyche.

Then biological medical science is introduced as the healer review DNA Genesis to claim, yes, biological life only belongs on Earth as a God theme. Yet it never owned a string theory.

What the real history of argument is about.

String theories claim alien metal, Satan gases (hot gases) then God (cold gases) right now.

God theist say only natural spiritual cold gases. Do not change any state.

The history of the argument.

 

[Tiberius]

Science in the life of a human being on a human does all of the body comparisons...yet each body exists in natural form, naturally owned in that form and living in the form with all other bodies.

How is that condition evolution?

Evolution in science is a scientist saying, we got given our human DNA genetic life ownership back only due to Earth heavenly gases, owned historically by the O planet stone and asteroid stones....from moon history to any other stone that hit Earth that gave back gas mass. ICE he says, being frozen water cooled our atmospheric gases.

Which is a cause and effect.

How is that evolution? Cooling gases is what a human in science says I got returned to owning my own historic life body as original life owner. How that story was told about God O planet Earth stone.

Gases were hot.
Evolution of gases they cooled and became cold. Evolution.

Yeah, I can't get any rational meaning from this.

 

[Tiberius]

um...
Because God is a liar?

Well, in such a case, yeah.

 

[rational experiences]

Science the history of.

Occult science the first a theist.

Living on God Earth. Their science theory about forcing fission changes to stone to get the power EL of God.

God biological natural spiritual scientist, the opponent of the a theist

Today the a theist says I am the rational scientist I theme only on cosmological laws.

Says the God scientist is not correct, talking about spirits and God/Satan.

The occultist a theist scientist is the first science group that studied occult science phenomena.

Science today is just involved in machines.

Science today owns occult scientists as God/Satan/alien theists aligned to machine theories/reactions.

Healers in natural human being life, natural spiritual aware.

Biologists, their own science theist.

Medical biologists, once were the healer natural awareness historically.

A big argument today about who is correct.

The cosmological laws are not human owned. We live in the natural laws of God the named planetary stone advice and heavenly gases in the cosmos...One place only.

Which therefore rules out the cosmologist scientist.
Who is also the machine theist.

Then the argument is left between the alien/Satanist/God theist and the God sciences who were human healer spiritual notified. Alienist are also involved in the machine theories.

As an argument today is spirit real. Relative enquiry if we came from the eternal and it was the original power that owned God, then the Satanist wants its link, when it does not own any to creation.

However the Satanist believes that it owns links to our bodies. Which he does not divulge in the public forums. And he thinks if he can understand our link, why he studies NDE in science and all spirit concepts that he will own the original form of God before "God" burnt into all lower forms. What he is motivated to achieve, when it is false.

Therefore the argument in reality is not being actually presented in the forums in the reason of its research.

Which machine scientists are not even interested in owning an argument about, yet it is relative to God themes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My turn for a question....
If all of creation must have been created by someone,
then isn't it reasonable to ask who created that someone?

That “someone” must exist as a form of energy.

Since “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”** (and we can’t deny that energy is all around us) — interesting how science has reached that conclusion — the source of energy, i.e., that someone, must have always existed.

** The Laws of Thermodynamics | Boundless Chemistry

 

[Deeje]

Then you will still have to explain WHY there is so much evidence for evolution if evolution is wrong.

The truth is, all the evidence is for adaptation......all the experiments are about adaptation.....we have no problem with adaptation because it is an inbuilt mechanism designed to create new members of a family of creatures, which helps them to populate a new area with a new food source. There is no 'actual' evidence for macro-evolution.....it is all based on suggestion and assertions about how far you can stretch adaptation with no proof that it is even possible.

When you are forced to resort to quibbling over words, I already know you have no argument of any merit whatsoever.

Especially when it shows you that you believe that things "appeared"...it was your own words coming back to you.

And this doesn't actually define what "kind" means.

Yes it does. The creatures are related and can produce new species of the same family....it can't cross over to a new family no matter how much time you throw at it. Even if the new species can't breed with the old species...they still belong to the same family.

If I see to individual animals, what test can I do to see if they are the same kind or not?

What tests did scientists do on the apes that they assumed were early man? The fact is they couldn't tell the difference.

These guys are a figment of a vivid imagination. I do not believe that humans were all apish cave dwellers in the dim dark past. Some people are still primitive in this modern world......it doesn't mean that all humans were primitive cave dwellers.
There is no proof whatsoever that early humans were ape-like. Neanderthals for example, were not stooped over as many textbooks indicated, but were fully human and upright. They were not 'apish' at all.

When it was ascertained that early man was less ape-like than they first thought, the illustrations changed to depict more upright apes. Not because they found apes that were more upright, but because it looked better on the illustration, carrying the idea of this upright ape ancestor, which never actually existed.

Why do you claim that animals can't adapt to new environments over many generations?

They can adapt, but they will never become a new creature. The new species will be related to the old species....
So how do you account for the early beginnings of evolution where there were only cells.....how did those cells decide to become what science claims they did. What were the ancestors of the established species?
I hear about these "common ancestors" but no one seems to know who they were. Shouldn't they at least have been able to identify them? There must be thousands of them....

All that shows is that their common ancestor lived fairly recently, and they had not had enough time to change into drastically different species. Also, given that evolution will only result in drastic differences when there are drastic differences in environmental pressures, I don't see why you think evolution suggests that any change greater than this would happen.

You guys seem to think that if you throw a few million years at something it can become whatever you will it to. Amoebas can become dinosaurs......with no actual proof that they ever did. Its all guesswork.....

Yes it has. The process is well understood. You just claim it doesn't happen because you demand that a process that takes millions of years be shown to you in a lab.

A lab cannot duplicate evolution but it can show you adaptation.....and in its adaptation it remains true to its original species.....and always will.

The science behind the Theory of Evolution is so substantial and confirming of the model that it would take some absolutely earth-shattering discovery to overturn it.

It doesn't really....all it needs is the truth....no one wants to hear the truth....its very inconvenient.

To deny it is credible, puts one a par with the holocaust deniers and the moon-landing conspiracy theorists. Do you also believe those weren't real?

I have known people who survived the holocaust.....eye witness testimony confirms that it happened. JW's survived the holocaust too.
The Moon landing? I can't confirm that it ever happened or that it wasn't filmed in a studio....can you?

So unless I have way more substantial evidence that all life came from a single celled organism that just magically appeared out of nowhere.....I'll take the more intelligent option and assume that design requires a designer and that matter did not magically transform itself from 'non-living' to 'living' with no intelligent direction at all. You are free to believe whatever you wish.....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Look and see science is made up nonsense. It means nothing and whatever he wants it to mean so science that contradicts his beliefs can be dismissed without review.

Ah...then it isn't science, and doesn't play a part in the discussion about science and religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Math and logic were not developed by humans!

They sure as hell weren't discovered under a rock...

They most certainly were found under, in, around, etc. our environment and ourselves. We merely assigned symbols and words, etc.

Not really. It's perfectly possible to make an internally coherent mathematical model of a reality that does not exist.

It's a series of symbols allright... making up a "language" developed specifically to describe, and make sense of, reality.

"It" is NOW the holy grail of PHYSICS -but certainly has not been until more recently -and I would imagine, anyway, that those scientists are looking for how particular things happened rather than whether those things indicate the necessity for creative activity, intent, etc. -which is fine for their purpose.They might be seeking a grail, but I'd imagine not a "holy" one.

I'ld think that if certain ingredients are a necessity, that research would eventually expose such.
I don't really see how you can "explore" such a path of explanation, if there isn't any data pointing in that direciton in the first place. What would you even be exploring? Sounds to me like that's an exercise that would take place entirely in your imagination.

Not looking for such can very much affect whether you find it or not.

The thing is, you don't really know in advance what it is that you are looking for... because that would kind of require you to assume your answers...

Though they would be getting "warmer" in regard to answering the question of the necessity of creativity, they aren't actually looking in the right place for it

"reality", is not the right place?
What "place" are you talking about that they should be looking, but aren't?

Evidence provided by scientific discovery can prove much more than what scientists are attempting to understand at the time

Ow? That's quite a claim. I hope you'll expand on that and explain in detail what else it "proves" and how and why... and how come scientists have missed that while you haven't.

-but only if they attempt to understand those other things -or those other things are -or become -extremely obvious.

So far, it sounds like you are saying that if you assume you unfalsifiable answers, you can force-fit any and all data into that unfalsifiable answer and then claim it is evidence for it.

Which is technically true, but it seems to me quite pointles and merritless.

(Looking at the antikythera, ITS purpose and function are FAR from "apparent". Agreed -but THAT IT LIKELY HAS SOME PURPOSE -OR THAT IT WAS PURPOSED is EXTREMELY apparent.)

Disagree.
It could be just a piece of art with no particular function whatsoever other then the subjective "I think it looks cool on my stove".

But as I said already, and for which I have seen no counter argument, to me it's completely irrelevant what the purpose / function of the object is, or if there even is one, in order to determine if its a natural object or an unnatural (and thus a created / manufactured) one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You believe anything based on belief is necessarily wrong

While I can't speak for @Dan From Smithville , I'm 99.99% certain that this is simply incorrect and that he'll agree with the following:

A faith based belief is not necessarily wrong because it's based on faith.
The correct thing to say is that there is no rational reason to think that a faith based belief is correct

When you make an untestable claim "x is true", and I don't accept said claim because there is no reason to think it's true, then that does NOT automatically mean that I think that the statement "x is false" is true.

X is true
X is false

These are two different claims and it's perfectly fine and possible to not accept either of them as "true" due to lack of demonstrability.

and you believe in science without even examining the experiments that are SUPPOSED to underlie it.

You use the results of science every single day. Every time you turn on your internet capable device, you are literally testing PLENTY of scientific theories.

Science is very results based so you don't need to have 20 phd's to rationally accept that science as a methodology works.

You can trust in the accuracy of atomic theory, because nukes explode.
You can trust in the accuracy of aerodynamics, because planes fly.

You believe extrapolation from experiment and observation is "good science"

Yes, because those extrapolations are testable and independently verifiable.

From the observation of descent with modifaction followed by natural selection on a small scale like with some finches, turtles, dogs, etc... you can extrapolate that all species must have arisen like that. This extrapolation makes a boatload of predictions of what kind of data and patterns should be found in the fossil record, the genetic record, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, genomic distribution of all kinds of genetic markers, ... and even how all these different area's of evidence should lineup with one another.

So yea, I very much think that extrapolation from experiment and observation is quite oke when done in a testable manner. Don't you?

and beliefs that spring from these extrapolations are reality itself

Carefull with that word "belief".
In the sense of "religious belief", science doesn't do "belief".
Science rather does: best tentative explanation for the data at our disposal at this point in time.

So science technically doesn't say "i believe", which in the religious sense means "this is True, capital 'T'".
It rather says "I think it's very likely true, show me wrong because if it is - I'ld like to know...".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

You aren't aware about how the building blocks of life spontanously form through naturall occuring chemistry?
We even find them in space rocks.

You should try paying more attention.

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?

False equivocation.

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

Claiming it, doesn't make it so.
And ignoring the role of natural seleciton, is not going to help you in your attempt at disproving one of the best understood and most evidenced processes in all of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

If tomorrow a "creator" of first life is proven, not one iota of evolution theory would change because all the evidence for it would remain unchanged

Instead, abiogenesis would have it's "creation" theory.

Just the word "appeared" is like magic, don't you think?

Only if your rip it out of the context it was used it and then pretend as if it was used in the context of a sentence like "and then a bunny appeared from the empty hat".

But that would be quite a dishonest thing to do, off course.

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.

Well, at least "the magic" that we apparantly "believe in", can be reproduced in experiments

Experimental Evolution of Multicellular Complexity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

"Kinds" remain constant. Lines cannot be crossed.

Yes, like the Law of Monophy in evolution theory says. You can't outgrow your ancestry.

Same with lions and tigers....their offspring are invariably sterile

Yet both are of the same kind: felines. Neither outgrew its ancestry.
That species can divert to the point of not longer being able to produce fertile off spring, is quite known.
That species can divert further to the point of no longer being able to produce off spring full stop, is also quite known.

Like in ring species, which show that your attempt at defining the term "kind" as those that can interbreed is hogwash.

For example, consider these geographic locations. Each location holds a population of a species:

Starting from 1, every population can breed with the one next to it:
- 1 can breed with 2
- 2 can breed with 1 and 3
- 3 can breed with 2 and 4
- 4 can breed with 3 and 5
- 5 can breed with 4 and 6
- 6 can breed with 5 and 7
- 7 can breed with 6, but not with 1

Neither can 6 breed with 2. Or 1 with 4.
In evolution, this makes sense. The "mother" population started in location 1.
A group migrated to 2. Genetic "leakage" remains between 1 and 2.
A group from 2 migrates further to 3 and from 3 to 4.
There's no more genetic leakage between 1 and 4 - they are too far apart.

The migration process continues. By the time 7 and 1 meet again, they are so different that you would call them "different kinds". So under YOUR definition, species actually do become different kinds.

However, if you see "kind" as a clade, then a change in kinds does not occur.
The Law of Monophy: you can't outgrow your ancestry.

If you're a mammal, all your descendends will remain mammals.
If you're a vertebrate, all your descendends will be vertebrates.

Why?
Well, because every newborn is always just a modified version of its parents.

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.

A whale is a vertebrate, chordate, mammal.
So is the 4-legged animal it evolved from.

Where was the change in "kind" exactly?

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.

Evolution = adaption through the process of descent with modification followed by selection

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.

Law of Monophy. You should really learn it.
Evolution: the adaption over time that takes place in breeding populations by the process of descent with modification followed by selection. You learn really learn it.

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.

The law of monophy tell sus that if these finches would evolve into non-finches, then evolution theory would be falsified.

Adaptation has never taken a creature outside of its taxonomy....not ever.

If it did, it would a violation of the Law of Monophy, which would falsify evolution theory.

You should really learn it.

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.

It's not our fault that your knowledge of biology is to non-existing to be able to read that graph properly and actually understand what it is that you are looking it.

The evolution of whales

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

Yep. Underpinning that evidence, is the exact same Law of Monophy that underpins things like paternal testing. Or how the presence of hair or mammary glands indicates common ancestry in an ancestral mammal.

You should really learn why the Law of Monophy is important.
Every newborn is a modified version of its parents.

So if there is a lineage that develops these inner earbones, then those earbones ties its descendents together into that lineage.

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

If you really think these people aren't aware of the relative sizes of each of these species, or even worse: if you think that the authors of these papers ARE aware of it, but malicious pretend as if it isn't the case while assuming their readers to not be aware of it.... then sorry, but you are simply delusional.

If that is not interpreting evidence to fit their theory, I don't know what is....

If what you are doing is not grasping at straws and engaging in dishonest and unsupported insinuations, then I don't know what is....

a small, furry land dwelling animal is supposed to be the ancestor of a gigantic whale.....

Further still, the common ancestor of all mammals (including whales and humans) is a small shrew-like creature that roamd the age of dino's some 150 million years ago.

how is that not deliberately misleading?

It isn't. You're just falsely pretending that it is. Either out of deliberate dishonesty or out of ignorance.

Considering your continued display of ignorance of things like the law of monophy, I'm going to assume the latter.

However, plenty of the stuff your wrote here... I know you HAVE BEEN corrected on those mistakes in the past. And you didn't correct yourself. So I could just as well assume deliberate dishonesty.

 

[cladking]

You use the results of science every single day. Every time you turn on your internet capable device, you are literally testing PLENTY of scientific theories.

And people have been using counterweights since long before gravity was understood. And still today nobody understands gravity but counterweights work anyway.

Science is very results based so you don't need to have 20 phd's to rationally accept that science as a methodology works.

There's NOTHING wrong with the methodology. However most of what you call "science" is not following that methodology. Even the results of REAL science can not necessarily be extrapolated to be relevant outside of experimental parameters. Even experiment and "true" extrapolation are only applicable within definitions and axioms.

Science is very results based so you don't need to have 20 phd's to rationally accept that science as a methodology works.

No. Science was invented to get results. This doesn't mean that technology is indicative of understanding or current theory is accurate.

From the observation of descent with modifaction followed by natural selection on a small scale like with some finches, turtles, dogs, etc... you can extrapolate that all species must have arisen like that. This extrapolation makes a boatload of predictions of what kind of data and patterns should be found in the fossil record, the genetic record, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, genomic distribution of all kinds of genetic markers, ... and even how all these different area's of evidence should lineup with one another.

Cart + horse = running around in circles getting nowhere.

In the sense of "religious belief", science doesn't do "belief".

Language does belief.

It rather says "I think it's very likely true, show me wrong because if it is - I'ld like to know...".

The less something is real science the less people want to be shown or are able to see its errors.

Scientists love answers but not so much to be reminded that no two identical things exist and reality is chaotic. They don't want to think about consciousness and its real meaning to life and change. They can't even see that all things that affect species first affect individuals and all change is sudden. They don't want to reminded of their assumptions and methodologies. They want to believe that reductionism is the only means currently available to organize our knowledge or study at the leading edge of any field. They don't care to ponder how their definitions and axioms come to be the results of experiment.

We believe there is only science and superstition.

So we continue on this trajectory without looking left or right.

 

[Etritonakin]

They sure as hell weren't discovered under a rock...




Not really. It's perfectly possible to make an internally coherent mathematical model of a reality that does not exist.

It's a series of symbols allright... making up a "language" developed specifically to describe, and make sense of, reality.



I'ld think that if certain ingredients are a necessity, that research would eventually expose such.
I don't really see how you can "explore" such a path of explanation, if there isn't any data pointing in that direciton in the first place. What would you even be exploring? Sounds to me like that's an exercise that would take place entirely in your imagination.



The thing is, you don't really know in advance what it is that you are looking for... because that would kind of require you to assume your answers...




"reality", is not the right place?
What "place" are you talking about that they should be looking, but aren't?




Ow? That's quite a claim. I hope you'll expand on that and explain in detail what else it "proves" and how and why... and how come scientists have missed that while you haven't.



So far, it sounds like you are saying that if you assume you unfalsifiable answers, you can force-fit any and all data into that unfalsifiable answer and then claim it is evidence for it.

Which is technically true, but it seems to me quite pointles and merritless.



Disagree.
It could be just a piece of art with no particular function whatsoever other then the subjective "I think it looks cool on my stove".

But as I said already, and for which I have seen no counter argument, to me it's completely irrelevant what the purpose / function of the object is, or if there even is one, in order to determine if its a natural object or an unnatural (and thus a created / manufactured) one.

I strongly disagree with much of that, but it's not likely any further discussion would be fruitful at this time.

As many have said, science isn't looking for it -does not see reason to look for it (not that there isn't a reason). Therefore it will likely require that it become so obvious they do not need to look for it. It's a bit like understandably ignoring the particulars of many otherwise-obvious things in a junk drawer while looking for the one thing you're trying to find -then finding that super awesome gadget you didn't even know was in there which draws your attention. The current, very limited, perspective is understandable.
"Science" usually also responds -if at all -to the specific claims the religious which contradict what is obviously true to scientists -which certainly helps decrease interest.
What I have discussed above does not contradict anything scientific -should be obvious -and would become more obvious with more in-depth consideration. The knowns can be used to solve for the unknowns in regard to this matter -just as any other -if the sincere interest is there.
There is even enough available evidence to make it a science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The truth is, all the evidence is for adaptation......all the experiments are about adaptation.....we have no problem with adaptation because it is an inbuilt mechanism designed to create new members of a family of creatures, which helps them to populate a new area with a new food source. There is no 'actual' evidence for macro-evolution.....it is all based on suggestion and assertions about how far you can stretch adaptation with no proof that it is even possible.



Especially when it shows you that you believe that things "appeared"...it was your own words coming back to you.



Yes it does. The creatures are related and can produce new species of the same family....it can't cross over to a new family no matter how much time you throw at it. Even if the new species can't breed with the old species...they still belong to the same family.



What tests did scientists do on the apes that they assumed were early man? The fact is they couldn't tell the difference.

These guys are a figment of a vivid imagination. I do not believe that humans were all apish cave dwellers in the dim dark past. Some people are still primitive in this modern world......it doesn't mean that all humans were primitive cave dwellers.
There is no proof whatsoever that early humans were ape-like. Neanderthals for example, were not stooped over as many textbooks indicated, but were fully human and upright. They were not 'apish' at all.

When it was ascertained that early man was less ape-like than they first thought, the illustrations changed to depict more upright apes. Not because they found apes that were more upright, but because it looked better on the illustration, carrying the idea of this upright ape ancestor, which never actually existed.

They can adapt, but they will never become a new creature. The new species will be related to the old species....
So how do you account for the early beginnings of evolution where there were only cells.....how did those cells decide to become what science claims they did. What were the ancestors of the established species?
I hear about these "common ancestors" but no one seems to know who they were. Shouldn't they at least have been able to identify them? There must be thousands of them....



You guys seem to think that if you throw a few million years at something it can become whatever you will it to. Amoebas can become dinosaurs......with no actual proof that they ever did. Its all guesswork.....



A lab cannot duplicate evolution but it can show you adaptation.....and in its adaptation it remains true to its original species.....and always will.


It doesn't really....all it needs is the truth....no one wants to hear the truth....its very inconvenient.



I have known people who survived the holocaust.....eye witness testimony confirms that it happened. JW's survived the holocaust too.
The Moon landing? I can't confirm that it ever happened or that it wasn't filmed in a studio....can you?

So unless I have way more substantial evidence that all life came from a single celled organism that just magically appeared out of nowhere.....I'll take the more intelligent option and assume that design requires a designer and that matter did not magically transform itself from 'non-living' to 'living' with no intelligent direction at all. You are free to believe whatever you wish.....

I love it. You cannot honestly refute the theory of evolution or cover up the evidence, so you rename it to adaptation and accept that instead. Kent Hovind is your friend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It will probably help to offer definitions to words and terms.

Real science. Science that does not conflict with the beliefs of a person.

Look and see science. Nonsense term that means nothing or whatever you want it to mean.

Adaptation. The creationist name for evolution so that they can accept a theory they have never been able to refute without seeming to accept it.

Will provide evidence later. The person has no evidence. They will not be providing anything, now or later.

Something from nothing. The creationist understanding of science.

 

[Windwalker]

continued....

Continued....

What program changes in nature?

Modifications in the gene code, leading to changes in the organism. Evolution reprograms organisms. This is how new species come into being.

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.

And that intended adaptation for survival, is what leads to speciation. It's how new animal life forms come into being, through that adaptation for survival, that God built into it. Evolution, is God creating.

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.

Wow. Really? Humans are not part of nature? Are we extraterrestrial? Why do we have the same basic bilateral body design as vast numbers of species do? Why do we have blood? Why do we have bone structures that are found in countless vertebrate animals? These are all things that nature gives us, being part of nature as are all other animal life forms on this planet.

"Free will", is another term for "agency", which is the ability to act independently and make free choices. Are humans the only animals with agency? Of course not.

While humans do largely just run the programs all day, everyday, without consciously choosing action (this is part of the design of nature), we also have the agency to go against the programming, or even change the programming itself. Do other animals also have agency? I would argue that if we have agency, it is a development of what already exists in some simpler form in other animals. Animals do make choices, and can go against their programming if the desire is strong enough. We aren't alone in this.

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?

The truth is, we're not that different. What we see there, were see in ourselves as well being products of this natural system which evolved all life on this planet. We just take what was there already, and expand and explore it to new levels. That's all. And that is significant. I'm not trying to minimize that. But it's good to NOT see ourselves as separate from nature. That is a big mistake in my view.

What is the purpose for being different? Our survival. That's it's purpose, basically. First, it's about survival. Our differences are our evolutionary advantages. And we need those, considering how vulnerable we are to the environment, compared with other animals. We are hardly the best designed animal in terms of self-defense and survival. Our big brains, are compensation for our physical disadvantages.

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 are not alone in making choosing after considering options. Countless examples of animals demonstrating this ability can be found. Problem solving is commonplace in other animals.

8 of the Animal Kingdom’s Most Clever Problem Solvers

We have the option of reprogramming our behaviors...but not necessarily our nature.

If we reprogram out behavioral responses, we are reprogramming out nature. We are literally transforming our nature from operating solely out of baser instincts, to not simply follow that programming. If we stop simply acting on impulse, we have changed our natures to one which does not do that. Isn't the whole purpose of following higher spiritual paths? Isn't that what Christianity is supposed to be about? Transforming our nature into a spiritual nature, rather than "this body of death", as Paul called it?

We are the person we are born to be. We are all the product of our gene pool and before we are conceived,

That is really not true. Environmental factors, such as family upbringing will completely change who we become. If someone is born to abusive parents, the will suffer developmentally, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. It's not all in the genes.

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 completely disagree with this. It will not continue, and it will not come, without us. The kingdom of God is participatory kingdom. Without us, it will never come. Without us, the world will never heal. Without us, there will never be peace. Jesus taught this. This is what made his message radically different than that of John the Baptist who expected God to come and do it for us. "If only we turn away from sin, then God will come and save us". It's that view that Jesus overturned, and hence why everyone's confusion about his message about the kingdom of God. "It's here, among you", he taught. "You are the the light of the world".

That is a shame because evolution is no more a "fact" than any other theory.

It is a Scientific Theory, and that makes it vastly, beyond comparision between "theory" in the common-use sense of speculation. Scientific Theory is not speculative. Period. It is fact-based models of the data to explain patterns which are verifiable.

Scientific Theory:

a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution

Definition of scientific theory | Dictionary.com

......


"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

What Is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | Live Science
​

As you can see from the above, you are using the term theory incorrectly when it comes to science. It IS better than a hunch. It is better than a speculation. It is data-driven, fact-based explanations of the facts.

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.

Who is eliminating the Creator from evolution? I don't see it. I think you mean to say, change how we think about the book of Genesis? Yes. It should change that, because a literal reading of it, does not work well with the facts of the natural world we can see because God gave us larger brains to understand these things with.

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.

Sure they can be wrong. But the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, is overwhelming, and from multiple branches of the sciences, not just one. It is so well-established, it's on par with Scientific Laws. It is factual, not speculative.

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.

Why would you think I believe humanity is acting in accord with their spiritual natures given by birth from God? Because I accept the fact of evolution? That has zero correlation between the two. None at all.

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?

There is zero evidence that nature was "higher" at the beginning and lower now. The evidence is exactly the opposite of that, consistently, and overwhelming so. Don't place your interpretation of the Bible against all the evidences to the contrary of that interpretation. I don't see any conflict with the story in the Bible and evolution, because of how I interpret scripture. The problem is not the science. The problem is your interpretation of the Bible.

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?

Of course humans aren't. That's why there are spiritual paths to help lead them into awakening that innate goodness bestowed upon them by virtue of being created by God. All humans are created by God, every time one is born.

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!

Sure. We need to be a light in the world. But denying facts, does not make you a light of truth. It makes you fearful of truth.

 

[Yazata]

....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

Isn't the whole point of natural selection the idea that adaptations aren't just random, that they are indeed selected?

The issue seems to be 'selected by what?' By the intentional act of a deity or by the logic of the situation?

 

[Windwalker]

So unless I have way more substantial evidence that all life came from a single celled organism that just magically appeared out of nowhere.....I'll take the more intelligent option and assume that design requires a designer and that matter did not magically transform itself from 'non-living' to 'living' with no intelligent direction at all. You are free to believe whatever you wish.....

I believe God exists, and that God creates everything. I also believe Evolution is a fact of how all of what we see comes into being. These are not mutually exclusive. They are one and the same.

These only appear to be a contradiction to you individually, because you are married to your beliefs and are unwilling/unable to consider other ways of viewing God. That is the difference between the nature of your faith, and mine. It's the difference between being open to truth, or closed off to it. The former is faith, the latter is fear.