Different Opinions....Who is right?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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...

You don't need to be able to identify a common ancestor to know that one exists or existed.

For example, we could take a bunch of anonymous DNA samples and sequence them. From that data, we could determine how they relate to eachother. So we could for example pick out siblings. This would expose them to have the same common ancestor - WITHOUT being able to identify that common ancestor.

So yea, it's not at all the case that one must be able to identify a specific common ancestor in order to determine shared ancestry.

If you would understand phylogenies and how DNA testing works, you'ld know that.

only that they must have existed or else the whole theory collapses.​

The theory would collapse if the phylogenetic data wouldn't converge and expose common ancestry. But the phylogenetic data does converge and expose common ancestry.

​

Who said these "family trees" are based on anything real?

For one, the reference YOU YOURSELF posted earlier in the thread.
Let me remind you:

Different Opinions....Who is right?

"Phylogeny diagrams
Phylogeny may be represented by a tree diagram called phylogenetic tree (also called evolutionary tree). The diagram depicts the relationships among organisms or the relatedness between taxa. It is created based on molecular phylogeny studies and on morphological data. "

They are based on speculation and unsubstantiated assertions...not facts. Figments of vivid imaginations.

Nope. As the reference YOU YOURSELF POSTED clearly states: they are created based on phylogenetic and morphhological data.

Supported by what?

Objective evidence.

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.

No. Objective evidence.

Oh but they are on equal footing.....

They are not.

if you cannot prove your assertions then you are basing your beliefs on faith....how is it not the same?

Because between "100% proven" and "completely based on faith", there a is a whole range of "supported by evidence" that you insist on ignoring.

Not a single theory in science is "proven".
ALL are supported by evidence. Some better then others.
Not a single one of them, though, is based on faith.

Faith is reserved for supersitious beliefs like theism, homeopathy, crystal healing, fortune telling, tarrot readers, astrology, etc.

Faith based beliefs are a religion according to you.

No. I'ld rather say that all religions are faith based beliefs, but not all faith based beliefs are religions.
Homeopathy for example is faith based, but I wouldn't exactly call it a "religion".

Why pretend that science is not a substitute for religion to many people?

I don't think I ever said that.
I also don't quite understand what you mean by that.

In any case, even if I'ld accept that... being a substitute for something, doesn't mean that it therefor is the equivalent and with the same merrit or outcome.

For example, a friend of mine has quit smoking. He needed something to "fill the void". So he basicly substituted smoking with jogging.

I don't think you'ld say that jogging is the equivalent of smoking, right?
So even if you would call it a "substitute", that still doesn't make it "equal" or on "the same footing" by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact remains...
Science is evidence based.
Religion is faith based.

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.

Now, you are confusing "passion" for "religious fervor".
You're being dishonest again. Your comparisions / equivocations are completely absurd.

Yes it is

It's not. Instead, it's based on legends, dreams, visions, anecdotes, bare assertion, superstition,... like all other religions.

The Genesis account is totally aligned to science

Not even remotely, as you yourself demonstrate with every science-denial post you make only to uphold your religious beliefs.

If your religious belief was "totally alligned to science", you wouldn't feel the need to create a thread dedicated to arguing against established science.

....just not by the YEC version of events.
God is a Creator, not a magician.

Says the person who believes in miracles (=magic) performed by this god....

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.

We don't have the same evidence, as your ilk ignores a whole bunch of evidence, like just about everything from phylogenies and associated material.

Furthermore, your "interpretation" is completely merritless. It makes no predictions, it's unfalsifiable, untestable and it flies in the face of all the evidence you ignore.

This is why paleontologists succeed in finding fossils like tiktaalik by prediction, while you can't even properly define what you mean by "kind".

Sorry, but that is not true

Except that it is. Books are written by humans.

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.

Ancient greeks knew the earth was spherical and had no problem finding that out without telescopes or satelites.

Meanwhile people that suggested heliocentrism were presecuted by the religious authorities for daring to go against "god's word".

Don't confuse the Bible with the ignorant church that merely compiled its contents.

At least you admit that the contents of the bible were compiled by ignorant folks, I guess.

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....

No. Explanatory power has to do with the ability to predict testable outcomes.
Like when paleontologists predicted the geological rock, location and anatomical features of tiktaalik and then started digging and actually found it.

which evolution depends heavily upon

Evolution, like all scientific theories, depends on independent verifiability and data.

.....and the inference of stupidity if anyone questions their findings

Questioning findings, is at the very heart of scientific inquiry.
The problem is that the "questioning" you do, is that it is based on sheer ignorance, strawmen and denial of evidence. That's not valid questioning. That's just being willfully ignorant and in denial.

For something that cannot be proven

No scientific theory can be proven. Only supported.
How many times have people already informed you of this?
How long will you remain willfully ignorant on that?
How long before you'll finally correct this mistake which you repeat ad nauseum?

, evolutionists sure seem to have this thing set in concrete.

Evolution theory is very concrete yes. But it is pretty much set in concrete because of the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it, and it's immense explanatory power.

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

No scientific theory is ever considered proven.
Again: correct your misconceptions. It will make you say less stupid things.

"My belief system is more believable than yours" seem to be a very poor argument without proof.

Not proof. Evidence. And lots of it.

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

When you insist on ignoring the facts, you might off course miss how they support the science.
And how you misrepresent the science, has been made clear already in this thread alone.
I can't even count the amount of times I had to explain the law of monophy to you. And I'm absolutely 110% certain that sooner or later, you'll be back with that same already corrected claim which will once again call for the need to explain it all over again.

Because you can only argue against evolution by misrepresenting it.

If you are going to bury God, you better find a bigger shovel.

A non-existing shovel suffices to burry a non-existing entity.
I don't require a shovel to burry a thing that can't be differentiated from the non-existing.
In fact, there isn't anything there to burry.

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

What you call facts, have been shown to be nothing but misconceptions.

.....and to expose the fact that there are no facts to support macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution refers to evolution at the species level. ie, speciation.
You don't agree speciation happens?

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.

t'

View attachment 39891

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

"look at the birds"


Great argument you got there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster...is the rant finished yet? You add nothing but protest.....I've heard it all before...

I know that you heared it all before... That's precisely the point.
You keep repeating the same mistakes eventhough plenty of people have already correct you on it.

Yet you insist on being wrong.

One starts to think that you're doing it on purpose.

nothing has been offered that changes anything.

Indeed. The only person that can change anything about your misconceptions is you.
It's like that famous saying: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

As long as you stay in denial of the facts and insist on arguing strawmen, the stalemate will continue.

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

Beauty is a subjective thing and not an argument.
Also, being selective in your picture to only take those that look nice while ignoring all the nastyness of reality, also doesn't really serve your argument well...

Why don't you post up pictures of toxic fumes suffocating animals? Or pyroclastic flows completely destroying the beautifull landscapes in your picture? Or parasites that lay their eggs inside eyeballs, where they'll hatch and where the eyes will be eaten from the inside out?

And contrary to your extremely juvenile reasoning, I don't actually post up such pictures pretending as if they are an argument for or against anything.

You (falsely) complain that the biological sciences are just using selective evidence and opinion, and then you post EXACTLY THAT as an argument against it....


The hypocracy and irony is through the roof here...

Who is not stirred by these images?

They aren't an argument.
It doesn't matter how it makes us "feel".

Creatures are part of the scenery but they fail to appreciate the beauty of it as we do. Humans are unique.

Every species is unique. It's that uniqueness that makes them each of them a seperate species.
That you narcistically think that humans are "more unique" then any other species, is just you and your narcism. You like to think you are the point and purpose of the universe. That's just you and your a priori beliefs again.

Why is there such a gulf between the animal kingdom and mankind?

Is there?

Mentally, physically, spiritually and in so many other aspects, we stand out as very different...created that way.

Your bare assertion, does not follow from your unsupported premises.

The Bible provides the answers that science cannot?

No. The bible just makes faith based assertions. Faith based assertions, aren't answers.
They are pretend answers.

You don't have to believe it for the Bible to be true

Which can be said about every single assertion ever.

You believe in science like I believe in God

No.
I don't "believe in science".
I don't even know what that means.
Science is a tool to improve our understanding of reality. A tool that demonstrably works. A toold with demonstrable results. A tool that is not dependend on hearsay, opinion, a priori beliefs, dogma,... But a tool that is based in empiricism and testability. Which is why it works.

If you want to build a plane that actually flies, you'ld better build it based on scientifically acquired knowledge. If you don't, you will not be succesfull.

One of us is going to be very disappointed I think....

If you say so.

This beauty was put here for us....deliberately.

Including the eyeball eating parasites and toxic lava fumes?

Those images are what the earth should look like, but humans have messed it all up, using science in the process.

​

Science is a method of inquiry. None of the pictures posted are depicting "science". They are all depicting the results of irresponsible engineering and wastefullness.

Nothing in the scientific method dictates that we should be burning fossil fuels, drilling for oil, throwing plastics in the oceaon, what-have-you.

I know people like you like to PRETEND as if that is the case. And the reason why you do that, is because your ultimate goal (as throughout this thread) is to demonize science. To make it look bad. To scare people away from it. Science, for you, is the enemy because scientific progress threatens your faith based beliefs.

And you prove this with such behaviour over and over again.

View attachment 39918

Really something to be proud of isn't it?

I bet you won't have any problems with "evil atomic theory" when it is used in medical equipment to detect and subsequently cure your nasty cancer resulting from inherent genetic failure of how DNA works. Curiously your first series of "beauty" pictures also didn't feature any nasty terminal tumors that result in extreme suffering and eventual agonizing death.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Denial, misrepresentation and more denial. All based on the demands of a doctrine and not on any evidence or understanding.

I believe it is more an issue of following fundamentalist doctrine, arrogance and no small amount of anger and fear that drives this more than anything for a fundamentalist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is art....

This is creation....

One is art and one is the result of centuries of breeding by people. Do you really think this is what the ancestor of modern horse breeds looked like? And you claim to understand. Pffft!

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, Job wasn’t written till during the Exile period in Babylon or upon their return, which is where most of the OT books were written.

There are not a single evidence - not a scroll, a papyrus, a stone tablet or a clay tablet that predated King Josiah’s reign.

Can you show such written text dated to 1470 BCE?

You can’t. There are no biblical texts existing in the 2nd millennium BCE. None. Not even books that were attributed to Moses.

The oldest evidence in existence, is a version of the passage of Priestly Blessings from Numbers 6, found in the cave at Ketef Hinnom. These scrolls were written on silver sheets (hence the name “Silver Scrolls”), have been dated between King Josiah’s reign and before the Fall of Jerusalem.

I have checked, and so far, you won’t find anything older than these.

Go ahead present your evidence, Deeje, show that there is copy of Book of Job, that can be verified to date as early as 1470 BCE, as you have claimed.

 

[gnostic]

@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.

View attachment 39918

Really something to be proud of isn't it?

I see a lot of pictures of nature, animals and landscapes, but none of them show that god created any of them.

You are still posting pictures without contexts, hence they are worthless efforts because they don’t present god in any shape or form. So they are not evidence for creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see a lot of pictures of nature, animals and landscapes, but none of them show that god created any of them.

You are still posting pictures without contexts, hence they are worthless efforts because they don’t present god in any shape or form. So they are not evidence for creationism.

Considering that a lot of us have been in these discussions for some time, I am sure you have noticed the same thing I have. When a creationist says that the evidence can be interpreted to mean either creation or evolution, they really mean they can assert creation and point at pretty pictures. There is no offer to explain how puppies and sunsets demonstrate creation. Never will be. It is simply a redefinition of assertion to become interpretation.

While scientists examine the evidence. Analyze it. Compare and contrast it. Look for patterns. Come up with explanations for these patterns. Formulate hypotheses. Test them. Formulate theories to explain what is observed. If the theories are predictive and can lead to the expansion of knowledge and sound application, it is a pretty successful theory.

All we have in this thread is a straw man attempt to place belief on the same level as objective knowledge attained through sound practices and the development of rational theories explaining that knowledge. The two are not even close to the same.

 

[Bear Wild]

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?

Ok so you have a good grasp of the genetics involved in nature and the complex relations between organisms but then it becomes obvious how diversity develops without an imaginary god. The biology is so clear and explains why. I am happy for you and you should finally understand evolution.

There are brains in nature as a result of evolution you cannot negate this. The process of creation does not require a god to be on earth constantly readjusting the genetic code; it requires only energy and matter nothing more.

Computers are a byproduct of evolution and there is not required for evolution so I do not understand this argument. The formation of computers is from the slow accumulation of stored knowledge as a result of the evolutionary development of language and inmaterail to the theory of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

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?

The natural world did not form to be beautiful and life is not dependent on beauty, that is a purely human limited view. You could never understand the natural world if you remain limited to only human behaviors. We know that animals are attracted to aspects of there world including the designs made by some individuals to attract others. By the way humans have to learn to appreciate beauty by interacting with their world do no we are not programmed for beauty. I do not have cows in my yard but the raccoons who visit every night are quite beautiful to me as well as all of the birds and plants I see everyday. Still this is irrelevant to understanding evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

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?

So are you saying humans are gods? Oh and we are not the only animals that have a concept of past, present and future. There is more than enough evidence of this in animal behavior if you keep up with the literature. Animals also have been found to contemplate death of those they love. And death is a natural part of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So are you saying humans are gods? Oh and we are not the only animals that have a concept of past, present and future. There is more than enough evidence of this in animal behavior if you keep up with the literature. Animals also have been found to contemplate death of those they love. And death is a natural part of life.

I am not well familiar with the literature, but I recall a few discussions on bioethics and the observations that some research animals experience stress and apparent despair at the loss of some of their fellow research specimens. This is particularly true of primate test subjects as I recall. Another issue was keeping reasonable distance between predators and prey species. Keeping rabbits caged next to snakes for instances could cause a great deal of stress for the rabbits. Fortunately for me, I like snakes.

 

[Bear Wild]

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?

Nothing creates itself. We have the ability to pass our gene to create an individual like us which is predicted by evolution and genetics. The tools to pass on our genes should be familiar to you, at least I would think it should be familiar.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am not well familiar with the literature, but I recall a few discussions on bioethics and the observations that some research animals experience stress and apparent despair at the loss of some of their fellow research specimens. This is particularly true of primate test subjects as I recall. Another issue was keeping reasonable distance between predators and prey species. Keeping rabbits caged next to snakes for instances could cause a great deal of stress for the rabbits. Fortunately for me, I like snakes.

Chimpanzees have been observed to be aware of time and space to reach seasonal food and can estimate the travel time to arrive early enough to obtain the food before others can. This requires past memories, understanding of the present time and place and be able to predict the time to arrive in the future.
Birds keep cashed food stores for a storage with an understanding of where they are in time and space and even differentiate between food that will spoil early and use these stored food first before using more stable foods. This takes complex cognitive behavior to include past, present and future.

I really like rabbits but have too many cats I rescued to enjoy one in my house but I would think that if I were caged may next something that could eat me I would be stressed. By the way I heard Jeffersons Airplane's song "White Rabbit" and thought of you.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am not well familiar with the literature, but I recall a few discussions on bioethics and the observations that some research animals experience stress and apparent despair at the loss of some of their fellow research specimens. This is particularly true of primate test subjects as I recall. Another issue was keeping reasonable distance between predators and prey species. Keeping rabbits caged next to snakes for instances could cause a great deal of stress for the rabbits. Fortunately for me, I like snakes.

Why does Deeje have such long posts? It gets tiring to answer all of the incorrect statements. I can only think that if she post enough she thinks she can overwhelm anyone to answer.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Oh I disagree. The creativity of chaos in unlimited and even if genes do not have a brain they are responsible for the diversity of life.

Can you try less topics at once to have a better discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why does Deeje have such long posts? It gets tiring to answer all of the incorrect statements. I can only think that if she post enough she thinks she can overwhelm anyone to answer.

That is my conclusion too. Overwhelm people and they cannot easily address every aspect of a post adequately. A way to win outside the claims or arguments. With in person, oral debates and discussions, this is known as a Gish Gallop. Rapidly throw out so many points that your opponent cannot adequately address all of them and is thrown off track.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why does Deeje have such long posts? It gets tiring to answer all of the incorrect statements. I can only think that if she post enough she thinks she can overwhelm anyone to answer.

I assume all the bold typing, altered fonts, colors and emoticons are there for the same reasons.

 

[Bear Wild]

That is my conclusion too. Overwhelm people and they cannot easily address every aspect of a post adequately. A way to win outside the claims or arguments. With in person, oral debates and discussions, this is known as a Gish Gallop. Rapidly throw out so many points that your opponent cannot adequately address all of them and is thrown off track.

I agree my friend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree my friend.

It is not as if the attempt and the claims are new and have not been refuted dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of time over. They are just blasted out, shotgun style, in large patterns.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Yeah, right.

Has it become a new species? Arguable, even among Darwinists.

As I’ve stated, I have no problem w/ a new species appearing. It’s still Escherichia. Bacteria. For millions of years, it’s ancestors have been the same.