Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Deeje]

I just told you.
Don't you know how family trees work?
Intersections and the trunk represent the common ancestor of the branches the flow from it.

Ah, the elusive "common ancestor".....please identify them....there are apparently thousands of them....the phantoms of evolution.....who must exist but no one seems to know who or what they are...only that they must have existed or else the whole theory collapses.

There's no speculation. This is how family trees work.

Who said these "family trees" are based on anything real? They are based on speculation and unsubstantiated assertions...not facts. Figments of vivid imaginations.

1. scientific theories are never "proven", only supported - as I'm sure (again) many people have told you already

Supported by what? Suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" happened when no one was there to document a thing? Supported by smoke and mirrors more likely.

2. the idea that the only alternative to being "proven" is that is believed on "faith" is absolutely absurd.

Science is based on evidence.
Your beliefs are based on faith.

They are not on equal footing at all.

Oh but they are on equal footing.....if you cannot prove your assertions then you are basing your beliefs on faith....how is it not the same? Faith based beliefs are a religion according to you. Why pretend that science is not a substitute for religion to many people? The 'religious' fervor demonstrated by devotees is proof of that. There seems to be a sad desperation in making sure that no one accepts the alternative.

Science doesn't use "bibles". Science is based on evidence.
Your bible is not.

Yes it is. The Genesis account is totally aligned to science....just not by the YEC version of events.
God is a Creator, not a magician.

Because it's faith based dogma asserted as fact without evidence.

We have the same 'evidence' as you do....we just have a different interpretation. You insist that you must be right...but we are not convinced by your 'evidence'....it is cooked over an evolutionary fire.

Your bible was written by humans (that didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun).

Sorry, but that is not true. The Bible writers knew that the earth was round (spherical) and that gravity supported it in space. (Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7) No human before the invention of telescopes could have known this. Don't confuse the Bible with the ignorant church that merely compiled its contents.

Science has no problem with faith-based assertions. Science simply ignores such assertions as they are utterly merritless and useless.

Science only cares about evidence and explanatory power. Neither of which you have. Both of which evolution has.

Yep "evidence" (as long as said evidence is interpreted to support evolution) and "explanatory power".....which is another way of promoting the power of suggestion....which evolution depends heavily upon .....and the inference of stupidity if anyone questions their findings. For something that cannot be proven, evolutionists sure seem to have this thing set in concrete.

No. It's you that is promoting a religion and in the process, you misrepresent the actual science.
We are just correcting your mistakes.

How can you correct our mistakes when you can't even prove that your theory is true?
"My belief system is more believable than yours" seem to be a very poor argument without proof.

It doesn't matter to me what you believe.
But I do think it is important to not misrepresent the science.

How am I misrepresenting science when science cannot back up their assertions with concrete facts?
If you are going to bury God, you better find a bigger shovel.

And may I remind you that it was YOU who created this thread?
Why does it matter to YOU, might be a better question...

Since I am promoting the existence of an intelligent and purposeful Creator to the readers here who might be undecided, I have every reason to state the facts as I see them.....and to expose the fact that there are no facts to support macro-evolution. The whole concept is built on the flimsiest of foundations....so let's not pretend that science has somehow got the high ground here....it just arrogantly believes it does.

When I see this kind of magnificence, I am not going to attribute it to the blind forces of evolution.

You can deny the Creator's existence all you like.....but art requires an artist.

 

[cladking]

That the "the fit survive" is a demonstrable fact, not just an assumption.

I didn't say the fit don't survive. I said there's no evidence it leads to change in species.

Every part of the process of evolution factually happens. If you think there are factors that remain unaccounted for and which should be included, feel free to design an experiment to demonstrate how those factors manifest and play a role.

When someone points out your poor methodology you don't get a pass by telling him top devise his own.

Do you have any such evidence?
If not, why would I, or anyone else, have to care about your claims about "consciousness"?

We've been all through this and you will just ignore it again.

This makes very little sense. Ignoring the strange wording of that claim... since theories are literally meant to explain observations / data, it seems kind of obvious that one would have to start from the observations / data to go about building a theory.

You are mistaken.

Theories are composed of experiment and not the beliefs of experts.

The phrasing wouldn't look quite so odd if you understood how science works.

OFF COURSE theories are "extrapolations" of observations.

A witch doctor and a scientist can both have 20/ 20 vision. They can both be pretty sharp. They both put their pants on one leg at a time.

Only one uses experiment.

There's nothing circular about this process.

Nobody sets off to prove his assumptions yet this is what almost everyone does in every instance.

 

[cladking]

That the "the fit survive" is a demonstrable fact, not just an assumption.

I should also mention that believers in evolution are essentially defining "fitness" to mean individuals who survive. It is a circular argument within a circular argument.

It is a tautology to say the fit survive moreso than a real observation.

It doesn't explain how a deer with an injured leg can survive long enough for it to heal. Animals get sick and injured just like we do and they don't necessarily die. I've seen animals survive wounds that looked fatal.

 

[gnostic]

Yes it is. The Genesis account is totally aligned to science....just not by the YEC version of events.
God is a Creator, not a magician.

But God creating light out of nothing, to divide day from night, by just saying a few words, suggest otherwise. Light and daylight without the Sun (which wasn’t created till the 4th day), defied all laws of physics or natural law.

The only times I hear of such things like words being used to create things, is from magician or witch incanting some magic words, or from polytheistic gods using words to create things.

In Memphite cult in Memphis, Egypt, the creator god named Ptah created the world, sun and life with just words. And in the cult of Ra or Atum at Heliopolis, words have powers to create, to transform or to heal, and Ra, Isis and Thoth were powerful magicians.

The Genesis are more like Egyptian myths and Mesopotamian myths than like science.

The 4th day also say the stars (including the Sun) were created AFTER the creation of the Earth. But science say many star’s were older than our Earth and Sun. According to our current knowledge of the universe, our sun was at least a 3rd generation star (classified as Population I stars, stars with higher contents of elements heavier than lithium) if not more. Astronomers have found many ancient stars, and as many 30 stars in the Milky Way are 2nd generation stars (Population II, stars with lesser heavier elements) that are almost as old as the universe itself.

Example, HD 140283 or the Methuselah Star, is a Population II star, with very low mass subgiant star, about 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. And this star is only 190 light years from Earth. Stars with very low mass, much lower than the mass of our Sun, have tendency to have much longer life, because Nucleosynthesis process is very low, so it doesn’t consume as much hydrogen. Very massive stars have shorter life span.

In the 2nd verse, it tell of Earth being created with watery beginning - the primeval ocean (abyss) with no land at the beginning. This is more aligned with Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths and with Egyptian myths than with science. In Egypt, the primeval water was called Nu or Nun, while it was called Apsu in Sumerian and Abzu in Akkadian-Babylon.

According to science, the Earth was more like molten ocean of lava, because constant bombardment of asteroids cause the Earth to heat up.

When bombardment became fewer, it allowed molten surface, to cool down to form the earliest Earth’s crust, hence creating land without water and vegetation. After millions of years of continuing cooling of the Earth’s surface, it brought different gases to the atmosphere, which cause condensation and then rain, which caused the Earth becoming cooler than before.

Although million of years did create ocean of water, it never completely covered the entire Earth.

So verse 2 of Genesis 1 isn’t in align with science.

According to Genesis 3rd day of creation, after lands rose from water, there were vegetation growing immediately. But according to science, even when there was land and water, vegetation on land, didn’t exist for billions of years.

Land vegetation didn’t exist until the Cambrian period.

Do you remember when I said the Earth’s crust only formed when molten surface?

We know from observation that when lava cooled, that rocks that formed were igneous rocks. Sedimentary rocks only formed when igneous rocks have been weather by wind, rain and flowing water. Sedimentary rocks are formed from sediments of minerals from formerly igneous rocks. Soil are also made from sediments. To form enough layers of soil, it would take billions of years to weather the crust of igneous rocks.

I don’t remember which period when the earliest vegetation, but it certainly wasn’t Cambrian period.

And if I remember correctly, the earliest vegetation didn’t grow fruits and flowers, as Genesis 3rd day claim. I am no expert in primitive botany, so perhaps someone with more knowledge than me, can inform you when the earliest flowering plants and plants that bear fruits evolved from.

And since more complex marine life started in the Cambrian period, then life started at sea millions of years before the first vegetation, which would Genesis wrong again.

And I am not just talking about YEC. The ORDER of creation, with the examples I have shown above, are wrong and don’t agree with science at all, whether it be astronomical/cosmological, geological or biological. So the order of creation in Genesis is wrong, no matter if you follow YEC, or OEC, both creationism are wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.what makes your ‘Bible’, written by scientists, more accurate than my Bible, written by the one who created all of it?

Science works. With its method, man has made life longer, safer, less laborious, more interesting (think the Internet and long-distance communication and travel), and people more functional (think eyeglasses),

Creationism is sterile. It can do none of those things, or anything else. That's the sine qua non of a wrong idea. The characteristics of a correct idea include being useful to anticipate and at times control outcomes.

Incidentally, your Bible was written by ancient people that didn't know where the rain came from. There is no evidence of any conscious creator for the universe. No creator is needed in any scientific theory, and inserting one ad hoc into a scientific theory gives it no more explanatory or predictive power. Even if you stick three gods in there, it remains a useless and unnecessary complication.

It fascinates me that this subject is so hotly and passionately debated.....like you are defending a religion

It's you that keeps starting these threads trying to promote your religious beliefs. We don't care that you believe such things, but we do object to your misinforming people about what science is, what it does, and how it does it.

why does it matter to you if people don’t believe you?

It matters that they DON'T believe you. Some people actually care about holding and disseminating correct ideas. Creationism is wrong. Biological evolution is correct.

Ah, the elusive "common ancestor".....please identify them....there are apparently thousands of them....the phantoms of evolution.....who must exist but no one seems to know who or what they are...only that they must have existed or else the whole theory collapses.

Thousands of common ancestors? There is one species comprising thousands or millions of individuals that is the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). We know that such a population existed because the theory is correct and requires a LUCA. That's pure reason.

The Genesis account is totally aligned to science

Science refutes Genesis. Evolutionary theory refutes creationism, most especially the Christian version, which requires an original human couple without ancestors made in the image of a god and possessing a soul. The theory says that none of that happened, and the theory has been confirmed correct unless there is a deceptive intelligent designer that went to great effort to make man believe that he evolved by planting deceptive evidence in the geological column and DNA for starters, a point I made to you in the past that you routinely evade. If evolution is ever falsified, that evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted, and there is no interpretation of it consistent with your religious beliefs.

Here's another question I've asked you a dozen times, and you predictably evade it every time.

"Are you proposing that we throw out a scientific theory that has unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, and trade it in for a sterile idea like creationism that can do none of those things? Why would we? Why would you?"

You guessed when you chose creationism, and the fact that you cannot even acknowledge these glaring problems with your beliefs is how you know that you guessed incorrectly. Had you guessed for evolution, there would be no such problems for you.

The Bible writers knew that the earth was round (spherical) and that gravity supported it in space. (Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7)

The Bible writers also "knew" that the earth was flat, domed, immovable, and set on pillars. And they had no concept of gravity or an orbiting earth. It's all just guessing, with guesses in one place contradicting other guesses elsewhere.

Incidentally, the earth isn't supported by gravity or anything else. Nor does it hang (or float).

How can you correct our mistakes when you can't even prove that your theory is true?

The theory has been confirmed, but that is irrelevant to showing where you are wrong. Your beliefs can't be used for anything and contradict the evidence. It's like choosing the wrong key to open a door with. It doesn't work. When you find a key that works, keep that one.

I realize that that flies in the face of faith, which is unrelated to evidence. By faith, one will keep the key that doesn't work anyway, never caring that it is useless. I don't need to show you the key that works to show you that yours doesn't.

Since I am promoting the existence of an intelligent and purposeful Creator to the readers here who might be undecided, I have every reason to state the facts as I see them.....and to expose the fact that there are no facts to support macro-evolution.

Keep up the good work. How many people do you think you have convinced with your "facts"?

What you actually accomplish is to demonstrate that you don't understand the science you are condemning and that you won't answer hard questions. Also, it gives others a chance to correct your errors and teach the science to whoever is reading along and is a critical thinker.

let's not pretend that science has somehow got the high ground here....it just arrogantly believes it does.

Your key doesn't work. Ours does.

art requires an artist

Only if you mean paintings, drawings, sculpture, poetry, dance, theater, and the like. Nature generates much that man finds beautiful without an artist.

But you overlook the Cambrian Explosion, the abrupt appearance of novel lifeforms. Darwinism evolution does not predict sudden change, only gradual.

So you believe the scientists who call the Cambrian explosion abrupt, a relative term, but not the ones that tell us what mechanism accounts for the change? How do you decide which scientists are incorrect (rhetorical question, no answer needed)? They're all using the same method. It seems pretty arbitrary.

the similarity of genes, doesn't stress relationship. Rather, this similarity reveals a common Maker, who used a somewhat uniform "blueprint" to create these organisms.

The similarity of genes doesn't stress relationship? It does in the law and forensic science. Similarity of genes is how paternity is determined. That's a relationship.

A god wouldn't need to use a uniform blueprint, but undirected nature would. This alone doesn't help us decide which it is, but this is only one of dozens of examples where a god could have done it more than one way, but blind nature could only do it one way, and it is always that way.

Like a flawed Bible, or regular laws of nature. If a god were involved, we might have a Bible that no human being could have written, but if there is no such god, only a book that human beings could have written is possible. And a god wouldn't need regular laws of nature to keep things operating as it saw fit, but a godless universe needs regular laws if it is to organize into galaxies then life then mind. As always, that's what we find. Tails again (see the paragraph below).

As these examples accumulate, the argument for an interventionalist god grows weaker (the deist god is safe, as it allegedly designed a universe to run without its continued oversight), just as a fair coin can come up heads or tails, but a loaded coin will come up only one of them. After a hundred flips all coming up tails, what will be your bet for the 101st flip and why? The possibility that it is a fair coin hasn't been eliminated, so how about a big bet on heads?

If you understand why you wouldn't bet on heads, you understand why I consider the possibility of an interventionalist god existing to be extremely unlikely.

No one has ever demonstrated any mechanisms of evolution that would build de Novo features.

Sure they have. Mutation subjected to natural selection does that. You were already told about citrate and nylon. Bacteria mutated and were selected for due to developing a de novo feature by that process.

 

[gnostic]

First you say this:

Yes it is. The Genesis account is totally aligned to science....just not by the YEC version of events.

Here you think science is correct, AND that it agree with Genesis creation.

And then in the post, you say this later:

How am I misrepresenting science when science cannot back up their assertions with concrete facts?

How can science be correct (with evidence and therefore have fact) in one moment in your post, then in the next moment, science have no facts, no evidence.

You are contradicting yourself, and yes you are misrepresenting science, when you expressing two very conflicting and opposite statements.

While nothing is really 100% certain in science, there are enough evidence that showed Genesis doesn’t agree with science at all. As my last reply to you have shown, the order of creation is very different the order of existence and formation of the Earth according to science.

So the 1st quote, your claim that Genesis accounts are “aligned to science” is wrong.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot even agree with other.

In Genesis 1, the order of creation is vegetation (3rd day), marine life and birds (5th day), land animals (6th day) before humans (man and woman together) also on 6th day.

But in Genesis 2, man was created first, then vegetation (garden of Eden), then all animals, then lastly woman.

These 2 chapters are completely at odds with each other. These chapters give us indications they were written by two (groups of) people with 2 different cosmologies.

 

[Deeje]

Science works.

You’re right.....science, when it relates to all the things it can actually prove by experimentation and observation, is wonderful. Who said any different?

With its method, man has made life longer, safer, less laborious, more interesting (think the Internet and long-distance communication and travel), and people more functional (think eyeglasses),

Right again....who said any different? This ignorance amazes me....we disagree with this one branch of science....unproven and unprovable by current scientific methods, and yet how many of you make this sweeping assumption that have a problem with all science? You are wrong....and it proves that you all have your fingers in your collective ears, whistling Dixie when we try to explain our position.

With its method, man has made life longer, safer, less laborious, more interesting (think the Internet and long-distance communication and travel), and people more functional (think eyeglasses),

There it is again.... Good grief!

Incidentally, your Bible was written by ancient people that didn't know where the rain came from.

Job 36:26-28...”Yes, God is greater than we can know;
The number of his years is beyond comprehension.
27 He draws up the drops of water;
They condense into rain from his mist;
28 Then the clouds pour it down;
They shower down upon mankind.”

This shows how much you know about the knowledge of the Bible writers.....Job was written about 1470 yrs before our Common Era....almost 3,500 years ago.

There is no evidence of any conscious creator for the universe. No creator is needed in any scientific theory, and inserting one ad hoc into a scientific theory gives it no more explanatory or predictive power. Even if you stick three gods in there, it remains a useless and unnecessary complication.

I agree.....that scientist promoting a godless creation convince themselves (with very little real evidence) that no Creator is necessary. What will they do, I wonder if, at some point in time, the Creator finds no need of them? Perhaps they will end up being a “useless and unnecessary complication” to him?

It's you that keeps starting these threads trying to promote your religious beliefs. We don't care that you believe such things, but we do object to your misinforming people about what science is, what it does, and how it does it.

I have at no time stated anything that is untrue. That you disagree is not surprising....but since evolution requires no proof, your theory remains an unprovable belief, based on biased interpretation of evidence. You assume that the interpretation is correct because you choose to believe the ones who promote it. Science is your religion if you accept it on faith.

It matters that they DON'T believe you. Some people actually care about holding and disseminating correct ideas. Creationism is wrong. Biological evolution is correct.

Some people feel the need to expose a theory for what it is.....an idea that is only supported by those who want God to go away....seeing him as an impediment to their own belief system...a ”useless and unnecessary complication” for them.
Protestations about “mountains of “evidence” means little if it’s nothing more than a mountain of assumption.

Thousands of common ancestors? There is one species comprising thousands or millions of individuals that is the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). We know that such a population existed because the theory is correct and requires a LUCA. That's pure reason.

Reason based on what?
Why can science never provide their identity? Why is there always the assumption of their existence....but no one seems to know exactly “what” they were....? These 'phantoms' of evolution are vital for the theory to exist....yet there is no real proof that they ever did.

Science refutes Genesis.

No it doesn’t. True science supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Nature screams that it is no accident, put together by mindless forces. There is complexity and purpose, which involves no flukes. How many of them would be necessary?

Evolutionary theory refutes creationism, most especially the Christian version, which requires an original human couple without ancestors made in the image of a god and possessing a soul.

It refutes the YEC version, which does indeed fly in the face of provable science. "Creationism" is not what Genesis supports at all.....again because the Creator is not a magician. Creation was a long and carefully managed process. The earth itself is very ancient.....Genesis supports this.

DNA studies support the idea of an 'original couple'.....their intelligence and moral qualities suggest that their extreme difference from any other creature in the animal kingdom is deliberate, with a purpose to his existence that does not apply to any other creature.
It also states that man himself is a "soul". It is not a possession, but a reality that comes with oxygenation of the cells in the womb once a heartbeat is established. Souls are breathers (Biblically speaking) so regardless of whether that oxygenation comes through gills, lungs or blood supply....all living, breathing creatures are “souls”. It has nothing to do with belief in an invisible part of man that flits off to heaven or hell.....that is Christendom's idea....it isn't Biblical.

The theory says that none of that happened, and the theory has been confirmed correct unless there is a deceptive intelligent designer that went to great effort to make man believe that he evolved by planting deceptive evidence in the geological column and DNA for starters, a point I made to you in the past that you routinely evade. If evolution is ever falsified, that evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted, and there is no interpretation of it consistent with your religious beliefs.

There is an abundance of evidence that is consistent with my religious beliefs. Who wants to falsify any evidence that points to Intelligent Design? Science grasps at straws to make sure that no one ever falsifies evolution. They would be ridiculed out of existence.....we see what happens when scientists, with degrees as valid as any other top scientists, make statements that put evolution into question.

 

[Deeje]

Here's another question I've asked you a dozen times, and you predictably evade it every time.

"Are you proposing that we throw out a scientific theory that has unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, and trade it in for a sterile idea like creationism that can do none of those things? Why would we? Why would you?"

As I have already stated.....the “evidence” can be "interpreted" to support either evolution or creation.....the individual makes a choice based on their own reasons for holding their beliefs. What genuine “facts” do evolutionists base their ideas on? I have not seen anything but suggestions and assertions dressed up as scientific fact. It’s nothing but smoke and mirrors when you look deep enough. Real science is not based on guesswork. Theoretical science is.

You guessed when you chose creationism, and the fact that you cannot even acknowledge these glaring problems with your beliefs is how you know that you guessed incorrectly. Had you guessed for evolution, there would be no such problems for you.

Now that statement says it all. It is a choice. And just as you see what you believe to be glaring inconsistencies in our evaluation of the subject, so believers in ID see glaring inconsistencies in the theory concocted by men who see themselves as more intelligent than God.

The Bible writers also "knew" that the earth was flat, domed, immovable, and set on pillars. And they had no concept of gravity or an orbiting earth. It's all just guessing, with guesses in one place contradicting other guesses elsewhere.

No, not the Bible writers......it is "the church" that came centuries after Christ walked the earth that is responsible for those ridiculous ideas. The pictorial language of the Bible was often taken too literally in those early centuries when science was in its infancy. We have come a long way in our understanding, and the church had to make adjustments and even apologies to some early scientists like Galileo....but nothing that Galileo proposed was against what the Bible said....only what the church believed it said. Again we are talking about interpretation.

True science does not in any way contradict the Bible.

Incidentally, the earth isn't supported by gravity or anything else. Nor does it hang (or float).

Gravity is what holds the whole universe in place.

“Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun and what keeps the moon in orbit around Earth. ... Gravity creates stars and planets by pulling together the material from which they are made. Gravity not only pulls on mass but also on light.”

What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

What am I missing?

The theory has been confirmed, but that is irrelevant to showing where you are wrong.

Confirmed by whom? Evolutionists? Really?
I can trust that there is no bias demonstrated in that confirmation?

Your beliefs can't be used for anything and contradict the evidence. It's like choosing the wrong key to open a door with. It doesn't work. When you find a key that works, keep that one.

Where does that door of evolutionary science lead, I wonder? I suggest that it isn’t where they imagine....nor do they understand who provided that door, it’s key, or where it leads them.

I realize that that flies in the face of faith, which is unrelated to evidence. By faith, one will keep the key that doesn't work anyway, never caring that it is useless. I don't need to show you the key that works to show you that yours doesn't.

Faith is NOT unrelated to evidence at all.....it simply has a different explanation for it....no less based on true science either. The key that we hold leads somewhere and explains everything....the key you hold leads nowhere and explains nothing. It answers no questions that are dear to the human heart. It is cold and remote and often leads its adherents to matching those same qualities.

Keep up the good work. How many people do you think you have convinced with your "facts"?

We have no idea......but I guess you hope it doesn't make your own responses look silly.
Science is often about egos...I am used to being ridiculed...it's like water off a duck's back to me, but the responses here from evolutionists seem to demonstrate a strong desire to quash any suggestion that evolution could be wrong....meaning that they might be barking up the wrong tree altogether....

That would be a big 'whoops', don't you think?

What you actually accomplish is to demonstrate that you don't understand the science you are condemning and that you won't answer hard questions. Also, it gives others a chance to correct your errors and teach the science to whoever is reading along and is a critical thinker.

Oh that old chestnut...."you don't understand science"....blah, blah, blah. I have read every link presented to me and can point out all the assertions and suggestions made by scientists concerning what they "believe" "might have" or "could have" taken place. If there is a "maybe" prefacing any scientific statement, then where is the truth? MIA.

Your key doesn't work. Ours does.

That just made me laugh out loud....I immediately saw this.....

Only if you mean paintings, drawings, sculpture, poetry, dance, theater, and the like. Nature generates much that man finds beautiful without an artist.

So you say....I don't believe that for a second....art imitates nature and life....it is a mere copy of the reality as it is perceived by the artist.

This is art....

This is creation....

 

[Bear Wild]

Ah, the elusive "common ancestor".....please identify them....there are apparently thousands of them....the phantoms of evolution.....who must exist but no one seems to know who or what they are...only that they must have existed or else the whole theory collapses.



Who said these "family trees" are based on anything real? They are based on speculation and unsubstantiated assertions...not facts. Figments of vivid imaginations.



Supported by what? Suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" happened when no one was there to document a thing? Supported by smoke and mirrors more likely.



Oh but they are on equal footing.....if you cannot prove your assertions then you are basing your beliefs on faith....how is it not the same? Faith based beliefs are a religion according to you. Why pretend that science is not a substitute for religion to many people? The 'religious' fervor demonstrated by devotees is proof of that. There seems to be a sad desperation in making sure that no one accepts the alternative.



Yes it is. The Genesis account is totally aligned to science....just not by the YEC version of events.
God is a Creator, not a magician.



We have the same 'evidence' as you do....we just have a different interpretation. You insist that you must be right...but we are not convinced by your 'evidence'....it is cooked over an evolutionary fire.



Sorry, but that is not true. The Bible writers knew that the earth was round (spherical) and that gravity supported it in space. (Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7) No human before the invention of telescopes could have known this. Don't confuse the Bible with the ignorant church that merely compiled its contents.



Yep "evidence" (as long as said evidence is interpreted to support evolution) and "explanatory power".....which is another way of promoting the power of suggestion....which evolution depends heavily upon .....and the inference of stupidity if anyone questions their findings. For something that cannot be proven, evolutionists sure seem to have this thing set in concrete.



How can you correct our mistakes when you can't even prove that your theory is true?
"My belief system is more believable than yours" seem to be a very poor argument without proof.



How am I misrepresenting science when science cannot back up their assertions with concrete facts?
If you are going to bury God, you better find a bigger shovel.



Since I am promoting the existence of an intelligent and purposeful Creator to the readers here who might be undecided, I have every reason to state the facts as I see them.....and to expose the fact that there are no facts to support macro-evolution. The whole concept is built on the flimsiest of foundations....so let's not pretend that science has somehow got the high ground here....it just arrogantly believes it does.

When I see this kind of magnificence, I am not going to attribute it to the blind forces of evolution.

View attachment 39891

You can deny the Creator's existence all you like.....but art requires an artist.

You just have no understanding of the creative force of nature. Yes every picture is amazing but all predicted by evolutionary theory. So yes I can deny this is proof of a creators existence. The artist copies nature in a best attempt to capture the real beauty of the natural world. So you have it reversed it is the artist that learned from evolution and not the reverse.

 

[Bear Wild]

As I have already stated.....the “evidence” can be "interpreted" to support either evolution or creation.....the individual makes a choice based on their own reasons for holding their beliefs. What genuine “facts” do evolutionists base their ideas on? I have not seen anything but suggestions and assertions dressed up as scientific fact. It’s nothing but smoke and mirrors when you look deep enough. Real science is not based on guesswork. Theoretical science is.



Now that statement says it all. It is a choice. And just as you see what you believe to be glaring inconsistencies in our evaluation of the subject, so believers in ID see glaring inconsistencies in the theory concocted by men who see themselves as more intelligent than God.



No, not the Bible writers......it is "the church" that came centuries after Christ walked the earth that is responsible for those ridiculous ideas. The pictorial language of the Bible was often taken too literally in those early centuries when science was in its infancy. We have come a long way in our understanding, and the church had to make adjustments and even apologies to some early scientists like Galileo....but nothing that Galileo proposed was against what the Bible said....only what the church believed it said. Again we are talking about interpretation.

True science does not in any way contradict the Bible.



Gravity is what holds the whole universe in place.

“Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun and what keeps the moon in orbit around Earth. ... Gravity creates stars and planets by pulling together the material from which they are made. Gravity not only pulls on mass but also on light.”

What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

What am I missing?



Confirmed by whom? Evolutionists? Really?
I can trust that there is no bias demonstrated in that confirmation?

Where does that door of evolutionary science lead, I wonder? I suggest that it isn’t where they imagine....nor do they understand who provided that door, it’s key, or where it leads them.



Faith is NOT unrelated to evidence at all.....it simply has a different explanation for it....no less based on true science either. The key that we hold leads somewhere and explains everything....the key you hold leads nowhere and explains nothing. It answers no questions that are dear to the human heart. It is cold and remote and often leads its adherents to matching those same qualities.

We have no idea......but I guess you hope it doesn't make your own responses look silly.
Science is often about egos...I am used to being ridiculed...it's like water off a duck's back to me, but the responses here from evolutionists seem to demonstrate a strong desire to quash any suggestion that evolution could be wrong....meaning that they might be barking up the wrong tree altogether....

That would be a big 'whoops', don't you think?



Oh that old chestnut...."you don't understand science"....blah, blah, blah. I have read every link presented to me and can point out all the assertions and suggestions made by scientists concerning what they "believe" "might have" or "could have" taken place. If there is a "maybe" prefacing any scientific statement, then where is the truth? MIA.


That just made me laugh out loud....I immediately saw this.....

So you say....I don't believe that for a second....art imitates nature and life....it is a mere copy of the reality as it is perceived by the artist.

This is art....

This is creation....

Yes this is the creation of evolution. Your denial of reality only represents your limited understanding of the creativity of the natural forces. You do not understand it so you can only think it must be from a human like creator which is to limited to create the diversity of life on out earth. Everything you present is well explained by evolutionary theory yet you cannot see it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey, IANS, hope you and yours are safe during this unprecedented fiasco.
I will try to reply to more of your responses later, but only wanted to touch on this now....

Sure they have. Mutation subjected to natural selection does that. You were already told about citrate and nylon. Bacteria mutated and were selected for due to developing a de novo feature by that process.

Were these new functions attributed to newly developed genes, or were they already existing genes that had their normal properties diminished? Or maybe a regulatory function was changed, I.e., where the gene was turned off or switched on? Usually other functions of the gene, that require energy, suffer.

Also, Keep in mind that selective pressures are increased in artificial experiments.

So it is gain something, but lose something.
Still, we have no problem with micro-evolution. Not even macro.... Up to a point.


Take care.

 

[Deeje]

You just have no understanding of the creative force of nature.

I have a very good understanding of the force behind nature. You speak as if "nature" has a will and a brain and a plan....it doesn't do anything that it is not designed or programmed to do. "Nature" itself has no intelligence, but its Creator certainly does and it shows. Instinct is programmed wisdom....how does brainless, mindless "nature" explain its intelligent programming? Do you have computer programs that you use? Did nobody write them? Could they exist if nobody wrote them? Can information be transmitted over vast distances without an intelligently designed system that is programmed and designed to do so? Are you communicating with me via something that just happened to come in to existence for no apparent reason and we just found it to be amazing? Or do you attribute this to an intelligent mind....with a plan and a purpose to their invention?

Yes every picture is amazing but all predicted by evolutionary theory. So yes I can deny this is proof of a creators existence. The artist copies nature in a best attempt to capture the real beauty of the natural world. So you have it reversed it is the artist that learned from evolution and not the reverse.

If that's what you want to believe, then that is your choice...it isn't mine.The real beauty of the natural world would be completely wasted if not for the fact that humans are programmed to appreciate beauty for its own sake. When was the last time you saw cows admiring a sunset? Or birds thumbing through a "House and Garden" Magazine so as to create a new type of nest?

We are the only beings on earth who can create the way God does.....with free will and a concept of where our ideas may take us. We alone have a concept of past, present and future and we alone can contemplate our own death and the death of those we love. We have no program for death, despite the fact that death is all the human race has ever known......why have we not evolved a way to make death a natural part of life?
We fear it...we fight it...no one in good health wants to die....and we grieve deeply when we lose a loved one.

Yes this is the creation of evolution.

No, this is the creation of creation....Tell me what, in your experience, can create itself? What do you use as a piece of equipment that was not designed by an intelligent mind for a specific purpose?

Can life just appear out of nowhere? Can that life then manage through no intelligent direction of its own, to form itself into a complex array of living beings? I am still waiting for science to prove it can.....suggestions are not facts.

Your denial of reality only represents your limited understanding of the creativity of the natural forces. You do not understand it so you can only think it must be from a human like creator which is to limited to create the diversity of life on out earth. Everything you present is well explained by evolutionary theory yet you cannot see it.

LOL...because if I do not subscribe to science's unproven and unprovable theory, I must of necessity be either stupid or ignorant....? Nothing I present is well explained by evolution...if it was I would be an evolutionist....did I mention that I was an evolutionist in my teens? I kept trying to imagine the mindless mechanisms that drive the evolutionary process and all I saw was intelligence demonstrated at every turn.....I dropped it because the whole thing is based on nothing concrete. If it was concrete it would no longer be a theory...it would be fact. Facts can never be prefaced by the words "maybe"..."perhaps" "might have " looks like" "could have" or any other descriptor that describes uncertainty. Those words describe a belief.

If you want to swallow that unsubstantiated belief.....you go ahead.
Putting the whole of beautifully designed creation down to mindless chance is not terribly intelligent IMV.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I should also mention that believers in evolution are essentially defining "fitness" to mean individuals who survive.

No. It means "best equipped for survival in the habitat they find themselves in as compared to their peers".

It is a circular argument within a circular argument.

No, it isn't.

There's nothing circular about the idea that the gazelle that runs faster then its peers, has a higher probability of escaping attacking lions.

There's nothing circular about the idea that the best camouflaged prey, has a higher probability of not being discovered by predators.

There's nothing circular about the idea that the one with the best working immune system, has a higher probability of surviving a desease.

It is a tautology to say the fit survive moreso than a real observation.

No, it's not.
It absolutely is based in observation.

It doesn't explain how a deer with an injured leg can survive long enough for it to heal.

"Fitness" in terms of natural selection, has nothing to do with getting injured.
It might have to do with propensity of getting injured, or the speed by which one recovers from said injury... But not with injury per say.

Animals get sick and injured just like we do and they don't necessarily die.

But the animals with a better immune system then their peers, will have a higher chance of recovering from said illness.

Fitness and natural selection, isn't about become some type of indestructible creature that is immune to any and all deseases.

I've seen animals survive wounds that looked fatal.

So?


You are arguing a strawman. So you're missing the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can science be correct (with evidence and therefore have fact) in one moment in your post, then in the next moment, science have no facts, no evidence.

Ow, I know...I know!!

It's because science is valid as long as she thinks it can validate her religious beliefs. While science will be "faith based religion" when she thinks it can't validate her religious beliefs.

So she doesn't evaluate science based on its own merrits or by the evidence.
Instead, she evaluates science based on how compatible she feels it is with her a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs.

That's her standard - and by extension, the standard of just about all creationists.
If it agrees with her a priori beliefs, then it's ok.
If it doesn't, then it's not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You’re right.....science, when it relates to all the things it can actually prove by experimentation and observation, is wonderful. Who said any different?

You say differently every time science says something that you feel contradicts your a priori fundamentalist faith based religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I have already stated.....the “evidence” can be "interpreted" to support either evolution or creation

No, it can not.

.....the individual makes a choice based on their own reasons for holding their beliefs

No, that's what YOU (and other creationists) do.
You indeed make "choices" about what science you'll accept and the reasoning you employ to do that is by asking "is it compatible with my religion / a priori beliefs?".

The rest of us don't do that. Science that contradicts my a priori beliefs, is actually science that I find exciting. Science that contradicts my beliefs is the best kind of science, because then I get to learn new things and expand my knowledge.

When science contradicts your beliefs - it's not the science that is incorrect.
It means your beliefs are wrong. When beliefs are shown wrong, you correct them.

This is the opposite of what you do. When science shows your beliefs wrong, you don't change your beliefs. Instead, you'll just deny the science.

What genuine “facts” do evolutionists base their ideas on?

All the collections of facts that unambigously and exclusively support evolution and nothing else, from multiple independent lines of evidence. These include, but are certainly not limited to:
- observation of speciation, and by extension every single part of the evolutionary mechanism
- the genetic fact of common ancestry of all species
- geographic distribution of species, completely matching phylogenies concluded from OTHER lines of evidence
- comparative anatomy of extant species, matching phylogenies from DNA and geographic distribution
- comparative anatomy of fossil species and with extant species, again matchine phylogenies from other lines of evidence
- distribution of species in the fossil record through the geological column, again matching phylogenies
- geographic distribution of species in the fossil record, again matching phylogenies
- comparative genomics, including tracing all kinds of individual genetic markers, again matching phylogenies
- etc etc etc

Everything in nature, every single independent line of evidence coming from genetics, micro-biology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, paleontology, etc etc etc simply screams evolution and common ancestry.

Sticking ones head in the sand, won't make it go away.

I have not seen anything but suggestions and assertions dressed up as scientific fact.

Because you are willfully ignorant, as I have shown multiple times already.
You refuse to correct your strawmen, you refuse to actually give an honest look at the evidence, you categorically refuse to learn what evolution theory REALLY is all about,...

The "theory" you argue against, is not actually the theory of biology. It's a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes this is the creation of evolution. Your denial of reality only represents your limited understanding of the creativity of the natural forces. You do not understand it so you can only think it must be from a human like creator which is to limited to create the diversity of life on out earth. Everything you present is well explained by evolutionary theory yet you cannot see it.

She doesn't want to see it.

This thread is FILLED with one PRATT after the other.

And not just any PRATTs.... But PRATTS that she herself has mentioned dozens of times before AND was corrected on. She still repeats those same mistakes and strawmen.

She can't see it because she doesn't want to see it. Her fundamentalist religious beliefs doesn't allow her to see it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey, IANS, hope you and yours are safe during this unprecedented fiasco.
I will try to reply to more of your responses later, but only wanted to touch on this now....


Were these new functions attributed to newly developed genes, or were they already existing genes that had their normal properties diminished? Or maybe a regulatory function was changed, I.e., where the gene was turned off or switched on? Usually other functions of the gene, that require energy, suffer.

EVERY new trait is ALWAYS based on modified genetics.
"new" genes don't pop-up out of a vacuum. Every new genetic trait is ALWAYS a modification of ancestral genetics.

So your "objection" not only is invalid, it also exposed ignorance on how evolution works.
Genes and variations of genes don't magically appear out of nothing.


The fact of the matter is that things like nylonese are exactly the things that you said don't happen: new de novo traits in a population that didn't exist before that.

Genetics were modified through mutation and natural selection and then the population gained a NEW ability.
This new ability in the case of the e. coli examples, is being able to metabolise materials that they previously were incapable of.

In the Lenski experiment, 1 population out of 12 evolved this ability. The other 11 did not.
They physically aren't able to metabolise citrate, just like the ancestors of the one population couldn't either.

But then that population evolved the de novo ability to do so.

This is EXACTLY an example of what you asked for. Unsurprisingly, you're rejecting it with but a handwave and some irrelevant / ignorant / strawman objection.

Also, Keep in mind that selective pressures are increased in artificial experiments.

The wording in this makes little sense and also exposed yet another point of ignorance... mainly that you don't really understand what selection pressures are.

A specific selection pressure can be said to "increase" or "decrease". A more accurate way to say it would be that seleciton pressures change.
Just like they do in the real world... Selection pressures are dictated by the environment. The complete environment: atmosphere, vegetation, presence of desease, predators, climate, geological activity, radiation, etc etc etc. Literally everything about the environment plays a role, or can play a role, in seleciton pressures.

The environment is NOT static but rather ever changing. So selection pressure change all the time in real life. Sometimes they change fast, sometimes they change slowly. But they continuously change.

The only difference between a controlled experiment and real life, is that in a controlled experiment, you can control the selection pressures. You can for example artificially increase temperature, or introduce new potential food sources. While in the real world, we have little to no control over the environment.

Having said all that, I don't quite get why you think it is a problem that in a controlled experiment concerning evolution, scientists alter selection pressures (by introducing controlled change to the environment)... It's what happens in the real world as well (only not controlled), so why wouldn't they do the same in an experiment?

So it is gain something, but lose something.

More often then not, evolution is always a trade off.
For example..... Suppose a mutation increases bone density. This requires calcium. So the bones take up more calcium. That calcium needs to come from somewhere. So if the diet of the organism remains the same, this means that now less calcium is available for other use.

In that case, it becomes a question of trading off advantages.
Suppose that the loss of calcium of where it was taken from decrease fitness?
If it does, doess it decrease fitness more then it increases fitness with the increased bone density?
If the net change in fitness is positive, then the bone density has higher potential of being selected for.
If the net change is negative (which means that the loss of calcium in those other places turns out to harmfull), then the muation will be selected against.

Still, we have no problem with micro-evolution. Not even macro.... Up to a point.

A completely arbitrary point... a point that is not based on evidence, but which is based ENTIRELY on your a priori religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs doesn't allow it "cross a certain point". You don't actually have any evidence that it can't cross that point... In fact, all the evidence we do have points to the exact oppositte.

But you don't care about that. You only care about upholding your beliefs. So you don't mind drawing an arbitrary line, which I predict that you can't even properly define, for no reason other then "my religious beliefs don't allow for it."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say the fit don't survive. I said there's no evidence it leads to change in species.

You mean, aside from all the observed instances of speciation in both the wild as well as the lab?

When someone points out your poor methodology you don't get a pass by telling him top devise his own.

You didn't point out anything. You just made an assertion and I asked you to provide evidence in support of said assertion.

You claimed that "consiousness" should or does play a role in evolution. I asked you to demonstrate that or if you are aware of experiments that demonstrate that.

So, can you?

We've been all through this and you will just ignore it again.

What did I ignore where and when?
Link?

You are mistaken.

No, I'm not. Hypothesis / theories are meant to be explanations of sets of data / observations. It's kind of hard to come up with an explanation of data when no data exists to explain..............

Theories are composed of experiment and not the beliefs of experts.

Hypothesis / theories are composed based on analysis of DATA and observations. They are then tested by making more observations and validating those observations against the predictions of the hypothesis / theory. These observations can come from nature or from experiments.

At no point did I ever claim, or even hint, that theories are composed based on "beliefs" of anyone.

The phrasing wouldn't look quite so odd if you understood how science works.

Says they guy who doesn't even realise that scientific models are build upon data in an attempt to explain said data, and who seemingly also doesn't understand what experiments are and how they simply result in more observations. The only difference between observations made in nature and observations made in experiments, is that in the experiment, we can observe things under controlled conditions - allowing us to zoom in on the specific things we are trying to investigate without interfence from the environment that is not under our control.

A witch doctor and a scientist can both have 20/ 20 vision. They can both be pretty sharp. They both put their pants on one leg at a time.

Only one uses experiment.

Not seeing the point of this comment, at all.

Nobody sets off to prove his assumptions yet this is what almost everyone does in every instance.

The scientific method is a method that is literally meant to remove such bias as much as possible.

 

[Deeje]

@TagliatelliMonster...is the rant finished yet? You add nothing but protest.....I've heard it all before...nothing has been offered that changes anything.

The earth is beautiful without humans....but what is the point of all this beauty if there were no humans to admire it?

Who is not stirred by these images? Creatures are part of the scenery but they fail to appreciate the beauty of it as we do. Humans are unique.
Why is there such a gulf between the animal kingdom and mankind? Mentally, physically, spiritually and in so many other aspects, we stand out as very different...created that way.

The Bible provides the answers that science cannot? You don't have to believe it for the Bible to be true. You believe in science like I believe in God. One of us is going to be very disappointed I think....

This beauty was put here for us....deliberately. Those images are what the earth should look like, but humans have messed it all up, using science in the process.

Really something to be proud of isn't it?