Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Nimos]

There are powerful groups in this world, intent on maintaining the push towards a godless society.

Why would they do that? What would they gain from it?

 

[Bear Wild]

When you allow ignorance to play into your theory to add the support of the ignorant masses...its is deceptive misrepresentation. Science allows it because it serves their purpose. If most people think that a new species is a new 'kind' of creature in some kind of evolutionary chain....science does not correct them because it might make people wake up to how very unsupported evolution is by actual facts.

That's why we need to get rid of the intelligent design ignorance without any evidence and all made up because of a lack of understanding. Kind and species have no meaningful relationship. Species change and drift apart and that is all that is needed to show evolutions. If you would actually learn something about evolution and get rid of just wishful opinion then you would finally see how evolution is supported. Just saying it isn't is meaningless, the evidence is there.

 

[Bear Wild]

Read that again...you have the jargon down pat. "The best delineation"....that "SEEMS" reproductively compatible and socially compatible"...what on earth does that even mean? Things are not always what they "seem". Science uses these terms to insinuate facts that don't really exist.

It was not until genetics was better understood that we have a better understanding of what we consider related but all species show variability. It is a question of whether that variation is great enough to reconstruct what is the species but in its origin it was based on how it seemed. You clearly do not understand that species is a man made term to help with the study of life. Yes it is imperfect but it is useful. Id and creationist have nothing and so they look for anything they can to point out that our understanding is not 100% complete and never will be. Yet the accept their understanding is supported by 0% evidence. They not that but hide that fact behind comedy as presented and false accusations.

 

[Bear Wild]

Darwin was musing on an idea.....and people ran away with it. Darwin saw adaptation....not organic evolution. Adaptation is not in dispute. To call it "evolution" in the same sense as "amoebas to dinosaurs" is very misleading.
Adaptation does not alter taxonomy no matter how many generations produce umteen varieties within a "Family" of organisms. Obviously, the Creator loves variety.

No Darwin was exploring an Idea that became self evident with the evidence he found. The amoeba to dinosaur is the old trick of creationists and later ID proponents. Oh my how could an amoeba instantaneously become a dinosaur. The theory must be wrong - as long as is totally ignore the all of the real evidence to mislead people just because they do not want to accept the truth. Better to keep there minds closed than see reality.

 

[Bear Wild]

Its not about when someone suggested taxonomic rank...its about claiming things that have no proof. To offer suggestion as fact is dishonest. Its a "belief" if it can't be proven and if you read the articles as they are written, you can see that they are full of suggestion..."maybe's" "perhaps", "might have", "could have"....seriously you've got nothing at the foundations of this belief. What happens to buildings with bad foundations?

Only mathematics has proofs science has evidence and the evidence is real not imaginary like those of ID people.

 

[Bear Wild]

I can compare the human brain to a computer....(because it is....though vastly superior to any human invention.) Did your computer just evolve or was someone with intelligence needed to design it and its components and assemble them in the correct sequence? I marvel at the gullibility of those who hold belief in millions of 'fortunate flukes' being responsible for complex mechanisms being successfully implemented many millions of times flawlessly. And these organisms replicate themselves generation after generation without alteration.

If you compare a human brain to a computer then you have no concept of biology. You are so gullible to think such comparisons are feasible. Brains evolved not computers because and you might not be aware of this but computers do not mate with each other and make baby computers that grow up to be adult computers or is that something that the "ID" proponents are now saying.

Again you show your ignorance to modern genetics - there are random flukes that change species but much of genetic change is far more controlled by the genetic material itself - no god ID or alien required.

And there is overwhelming evidence that organism replicate with alterations all of the time. Or do you propose we are all clones.

 

[Bear Wild]

Stephen Meyer is a very respected scientist....with impressive credentials....would you believe him?
Listen to him...you might actually learn something..

I did listen to him and have read his ideas and he makes significant errors in logic and understanding that someone familiar with current evolutionary theory should not make. Maybe he has credential in some aspect of science but it is not in evolution or worse knows about the ways genetics is understood today and intentionally leaves them out knowing the falsify his statements.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ah yes..."expectations"....what "evidence" are we talking about here? The ones that depend on them being aligned with what scientists wanted to find....li

Tiktaalik​

ke? Everything they said about Tiktaalik was an assumption. The only real evidence they had for evolution was in their imaginings....not in the actual fossil telling them anything about the process of evolution. They will hammer a square peg into a round hole just to make sure it 'fits'

What evidence? what do you mean what evidence. There are jounals and libraries full of evidence supportive - geologic, fossil, embryology, comparative anatomy, ecological, microbiologial, genetic and epigenetics. So you search for anything that may or maynot be completely understood as your desperate attempt to say that the theory of evolution is not yet complete. Fossil record supported but the other branches of science certainty does support evolution no matter how much you wish the did not.
The only ones hammering the wrong pegs are the ID persons because they know they cannot match up the overwhelming evidence.

 

[Deeje]

Why would they do that? What would they gain from it?

Control of course. If you kill God, you have no stronger force in human experience than the one with the most powerful weapons.

We all know that 'power corrupts' as we see in every nation on earth. If you give a flawed human being power over others, it will corrupt them every time. Collective power can mean absolute power with absolute corruption. Anyone with a conscience who comes into the political arena with the intent to change the status quo, doesn't usually last long.....they either have to lick 'em or join 'em. The financial incentives usually mean that they will 'join 'em, and shut up....not game to upset the apple-cart and commit political suicide.

There is a proposal for a single world government that has been on the UN's agenda for decades.....they have been waiting for the right time to implement it....according to Bible prophesy, the first thing to go down is religion. You can't ban it because it just makes people stronger.....you have to 'white ant' it....eat it away from the inside....get believers to disbelieve....to separate themselves from God. Then the most powerful entity in people's lives will be those who can enforce their own rules, with no agreement required. There will be no freedoms permitted outside of what the law of this government states. We are talking about totalitarian rulership with trained enforcers already in combat gear in every country....ready to make this one world government our worst nightmare.

 

[Bear Wild]

Or it just requires reading what the articles actually say, not what you think they are saying....there is evidence for adaptation...not in question. There is NO evidence for organic evolution based on actual facts.....it is all based on assumptions which are presented as facts. Read your own literature....but take of the selective glasses off.

So do you get all of your information from the national inquire or only from religious articles that you already know you will agree with?

 

[Bear Wild]

I like a good laugh...especially at the evolutionist's incredible assertions that everything is the product of undirected chance.

Again you have it wrong. Evolution is not just by chance and it is directed by environmental conditions. You really need to learn more before you make misinformed statements.

 

[Bear Wild]

Are you pitting your scientific credentials against a Professor? Seriously? Are you a Professor? What credentials do you bring to this table in order to make such accusations? Or are you merely a fan of the likes of Dawkins?

I do not have to put my credentials against him. His statements are incorrect so whether he is a professor or a priest does not matter. My credential is a lifetime working in the scientific field what is yours.

 

[Bear Wild]

Why would I pick Stephen Meyer? You've never listened to him or his explanations have you? He is a very intelligent and articulate man.....who knows what he's talking about.

No matter how articulate he is he is not up to date on evolution theory and genetics. If he is intelligent then he should be aware of what is known and avoid profound misinterpretations of evolutionary theory and genetics.

 

[Bear Wild]

"Meyer graduated with B.S. degrees in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College, then worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985.[6][7] Meyer then took up a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University in England.[8] His 1990 dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[9] Meyer received his Ph.D. from Cambridge in 1991.[8]

In Fall 1990 he became an assistant professor of philosophy at Whitworth, where he was promoted to Associate Professor in 1995,[10] and gained tenure in 1996. In Fall 2002 he moved to the position of professor, Conceptual Foundations of Science, at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. He continued there to Spring 2005,[11][7] then ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[12]"

So he is not a specialist in either genetics, ecology or evolution so why is he professing he knows enough. His specialties are outside of the critical sciences to understand the theory. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The interpretations of those facts, are.....there is a definite need for some to discredit the Bible!

Aldous Huxley even stated that.....


“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

Quote by Aldous Huxley: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have...”


So yes, there are ulterior motives for promoting an idea that tries to explain why there’s no need for a Creator.

Fortunately, with honest examination, one can see that the mechanisms behind evolution — natural selection, HGT, gene flow, etc. — do not have the evidential support to explain and account for the sheer diversity of life!

Do you not think that, while creating these varied “kinds”, i.e., family-level taxa probably, God couldn’t duplicate the genes that other “kinds” similarly have?

Because all life has DNA, then that means all life is related?
Well, all life is carbon-based, and many rocks are carbon-based. Are they all related? No, just created.

The theory of evolution is not an idea proposed to show that there is no need for a creator. This is an old straw man. I cannot even believe you are using it. The theory says nothing about a creator at all. Not for or against. That the actions of an intelligence or a creator are not mentioned is because there is nothing to mention. There is no evidence for the actions of an intelligence. Those that claim otherwise are lying to themselves and they want everyone else to lie to themselves too.

That is not an honest examination. The theory has all the evidential support.

The carbon in rocks is often from an original living source. Limestone, dolostone, diatomaceous earth all have living things as their original source material for the carbon. Your attempt to nullify by analogy fails.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The interpretations of those facts, are.....there is a definite need for some to discredit the Bible!

Aldous Huxley even stated that.....


“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

Quote by Aldous Huxley: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have...”


So yes, there are ulterior motives for promoting an idea that tries to explain why there’s no need for a Creator.

Fortunately, with honest examination, one can see that the mechanisms behind evolution — natural selection, HGT, gene flow, etc. — do not have the evidential support to explain and account for the sheer diversity of life!

Do you not think that, while creating these varied “kinds”, i.e., family-level taxa probably, God couldn’t duplicate the genes that other “kinds” similarly have?

Because all life has DNA, then that means all life is related?
Well, all life is carbon-based, and many rocks are carbon-based. Are they all related? No, just created.

Are you sure that kinds means taxonomic family? There is nothing in the Bible to base that on. After all, it is not a science book and taxonomy hadn't even been invented when the Bible was written. The people of the time thought insects had four legs.

God can do whatever He chooses to do, but there is no evidence that shows that everything shares genes because God chose to duplicate them. There is a process of reproduction and heredity where we see genes transferred to succeeding generations. We see related organism at different taxonomic levels that share genes. You can believe whatever you want and pretend that evidence does not exist, but it does and I will not lie to myself and say it does not. You wouldn't either, except that you belong to a sect that demands you toe the party line or else. I understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Poor Fox .....was there someone with a big stick forcing you to exhaust yourself by reading anything in my thread? The long replies address other long replies. It’s the nature of the subject matter.....do you expect believers to roll over and play dead when confronted with an equally unprovable belief system?
Don’t hold your breath....OK?

The long replies are a tactic to overwhelm, since you have no substance that holds up. They are not in response to other long posts. They are your standard overload.

I expect believers to be honest. I keep hoping that those opposed to science based on evidence will realize their need to be too.

 

[dad]

Sure you can as it is not only based on the type of fossils, but also where they are found in the sediment layers.

You will not find human fossils mixed up with dinosaur fossils for instant. If humans were living side by side with them we would expect to find fossils there as well, but we don't.

Sorry that you totally missed the point. If man and most animals could not leave remains in the different former nature, we would NOT expect to find them.

Furthermore the whole idea of science is to be able to predict and based on evolution theory it was predicted that if it were true, then we should be able to find a transitional species between non-tetrapod vertebrates (fish) and early tetrapods.

False.

Creation and then a rapid evolution also fit the same bill. Your beliefs are not needed at all. Some fish migrating out from Eden and obeying the command to multiply would need to adapt to many different environments along the way. If there were marshy areas, they may have needed to adapt to both land and water to feed for example. That does not mean that there also were not millions of fish in the sea at the same time! It just means that a few creatures for whatever reasons in that different nature of the past could leave remains. The creature that was adapted to land somewhat happened to be one of those that could!

So all this is not based on just one type of evidence, there are many fields which backs this up.

No. The same belief that there was a same nature in the past is used on different fossils!

Im not an expert in how these people do all these things, but alternatively what you are implying is that these people that have spend years and years studying these things, are all wrong, that their whole education is basically non sense. I have a hard time believing that so many people got it wrong.

Amen! The wisdom of man is foolishness to God! Screaming idiocy.

What reason do they have to believe that it's not the same?

What reason do we have to care what they believe!!? Unless they know, and can prove it, they may NOT use the belief in science models. Cease and desist!

What in nature suggest that it have changed so dramatically that we are talking about something completely different?

Not what has changed IN nature, but what changed that left us with this nature?! It was not our nature or anything IN it that changed. Our nature IS the change.

Why could man and most animals not leave fossil remains?

WE don't know. However, there may have been a lot of creatures that used to be alive that specialized in disposing of various types of animals! Even in the present nature we have creatures, and fungi and all sorts of things that dispose of remains. One specialized creature today, for example, is the snotworm, that feeds on specific types of whale remains.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL...there are two sides to every story.....
The Truth about the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

There are powerful groups in this world, intent on maintaining the push towards a godless society.
That's OK...not everyone is fooled or dazzled by the science.....some people would rather have an inconvenient truth than a convenient lie.

The truth is that intelligent design lost. It is not science.

I find much of what you say to be convenient. Just not for anyone interested in the truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like that comparison and reminds me of a similar phrase I learned while studying Zen Buddhism .
When the student asked the master about finding the truth in scriptures the master answered.
"Scriptures are like a man pointing to the moon. He who takes the hand to be the moon has no wisdom. "

That seems to fit my comparison pretty well I think.