Different Opinions....Who is right?

[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 interpretation of the facts are based on theory, prior work, analysis, experimentation, logic and reason. They are subject to review, testing and the discovery of new evidence. They are not interpreted to some predetermined end. People that do not understand science, do not want to understand it and wish only to deny it always say that it is interpreted to get the desired answer, but this is not true.

 

[Deeje]

Wow, what a desperate roll of responses there @Wild Fox ......All protestations...but where's your "evidence"?

Because we can't accept suggestions or assertions as facts....please give us your personal proof that what you believe is actually true. We're all ears....no maybe's....just cold hard facts that are substantiated by real evidence that life came out of the primordial soup and transformed itself into all the living things we see on planet Earth, both past and present......not suggestions based on science's wishful thinking, and of course, identifying all those "common ancestors" that appear to be in hiding at present. Not even needing to touch abiogenesis.

IMO, the theory of evolution is of itself, a misrepresentation of the evidence. If it doesn't fit...fudge it. Suggest something and make it sound like a fact.....but we all know that there are no facts....nothing concrete to bet your life on.

Just because someone immerses themselves in a subject doesn't mean that they have an objective grasp of that subject. In fact, it often works against having an objective view because of refusing to even examine any evidence to the contrary......it can also result in having a very biased, one-sided slant on things. Isn't that what evolutionists accuse us of doing? Are you guys guilty of the same offense?

I understand why evolutionists must believe that they are correct, because the opposing view may lead somewhere that they are not prepared to go....I wonder if they might be a bit apprehensive about that considering what happens if they are correct, (things continue on as they are and the world gets more and more secular and less and less moral) compared with what happens if the opposing view is correct......? (The Creator gets to exercise his power to correct all the things we have messed up down here, including dispatching all who oppose and disrespect him.)

"Methinks thou protesteth too much"....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am impressed and give you credit for handling her long, drawn out, exhausting posts!

lol, thanks I guess...

Gotta keep busy in quarantine.

Too bad none of it will stick. Within 2-3 posts, if even that much, she'll be back with the same strawmen and misrepresentations that have just been corrected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you define "best equipped for survival in the habitat they find themselves in as compared to their peers" as survival of the fittest.

It's the same thing, just using different words.
You could also say "best adapted" or whatever.

In short, those most likely to survive and reproduce, will most likely be the ones to survive and reproduce.
Kind of insane that it needs further elaboration and / or that such a rather obvious thing needs to be explained.

It remains a circular argument

???

How is it circular?

I'm very sorry that reality is so complex but without understanding why one consciousness survives where another does not you can never understand how species change.

What are you talking about?

We can someday model much of it and gain insights into past changes but not until we understand consciousness; not until we have defined and reduced "all" of the relevant parameters. You're just going to have to deal with this.

Wait a second.... So on the one hand you say that you don't understand what consciousness is and that we can't model it, but on the other hand you keep claiming it plays a role in evolutionary mechanisms?

So what is its role, and how do you know?
I am especially interested in the "how do you know" part - especially since you've just acknowledged that you don't understand it nore can model it. Which kind of raises the questions how you could possible know it then.........


As I said before: if you think there are factors / variables not included in the evolutionary mechanism that SHOULD be included.... Then make your case. Don't just assert it. Name the things you think are factors AND demonstrate how they manifest and affect evolutionary mechanisms.

On the bright side we don't have to chuck out the few experiments that have been done, we merely need to chuck the conclusions and models. We get to keep the technology that has sprung from our (mis)understandings but we need to eradicate the silly beliefs and perspectives that have arisen.

No idea what you are refering to.

ALL animals are fit

No.
Some are more fit then others.
Some are less fit then others.

And that's what natural selection works on.

They are each different and equally fit

No, they aren't.

The idea that some are more fit than others is the greatest evil of our time and even exceeds the evil that we know everything. We murder billions in the name of our silly beliefs.

It has nothing to do with "evil" or "good" and everything with how well an organism thrives in a certain habitat as compared to its peers.

Why you bring up "murder" in this context is also a complete mystery.

An educated guess tells me that you really have no clue what "fit" actually means in this context.

 

[Nimos]

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

Sorry, what?

I hardly know where to begin... so lets just start somewhere

Why would scientists, lets just say a geologist want to kill God? How many of them have you heard of, that are seeking a political career, wouldn't we expect a long line of scientists during all elections to push for control?

If this was part of some grand agenda to control the world through weapons, it makes no difference whether or not God is alive.

Do you honestly think it matters if the US and Russia had 20000 active warheads each, if "they" manage to kill God? And why are they actively trying to reduce the amount?

How often do you hear scientists come forward encouraging politicians to focus on building more weapons, again wouldn't you expect them to do so, if they are part of this?

What about scientists from my country, Denmark or any other country like Germany, Australia, Sweden, Japan etc. that doesn't have nuclear weapons, wouldn't they be interested in keeping God alive as they are not going to win this weapon race should God be killed?

Wouldn't we expect Denmark as a very small country of really high living standard to be extremely focused on making sure that people stay religious?

Think about it, of all the scientists in the world in varies fields and no one is whistleblowing this whole thing off the planet? Every person that ever goes to university to study any field that have any relationship to evolution, age of Earth, even in the medical industry which might be using the theory daily, when trying to make vaccines to save people's life. Are all part of this and go along with it? Some of these people are religious, why would they do that?

Furthermore, the idea of big bang were suggested by a Catholic priest and fully accepted by the scientific community now, trying to defend the theory as being truth because that is what the evidence show. Wouldn't the Catholic priest know about this conspiracy as well?

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.

There is no freedom outside what a government decide already, if you break the law, you are either ending up in prison or getting a fine as it is now, so how would that change? Do you honestly believe that they care about whether or not people go to church?

Why would so many religious people support evolution, if it was obviously wrong? Wouldn't we expect a very heated debate with religious scientists and religious people in general throwing themself all over it, presenting one hard evidence after another about how it is wrong? They in your opinion have as much to loose as you do, right?

Even in Denmark where a lot of people are not very religious, and even those that claim to believe in God take it very easy compared to other countries. And honestly I think its a minority that have ever read the bible to begin with. Yet our Church is funded by the government through free taxation, so if you don't want to pay to it you don't have to. I pay to it, even though im an atheist.
But if our government is part of this grand plan to kill God, instantly removing this tax would be a very good start as it would probably kill off most churches.

Furthermore, do you think that all politicians are atheists and want to kill off God? Wouldn't they also blow the lid on this whole thing when they figured it out?

Who is behind this grand plan and able to convince all the scientists, politicians etc. all over the world to begin with?

Im sorry, but it makes no sense at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are blind to arguments and evidence that don't agree with your thinking

No. It's just kind of hard to see things that aren't there...

You are blind to the metaphysics that drives the reductionistic perspective of reality. You do not only fail to address my arguments you fail to even see them.

You didn't give me any arguments, let alone evidence. Assertions aren't arguments or evidence.

You fail to see religious arguments as well simply because it is faith based

No, I see them. I just don't care about them, because faith isn't a pathway to truth.
One can believe and claim anything on faith.

but then you don't see your argument is faith based as well.
You have a faith in the nebulous concept of "science" that you don't comprehend and in language that means something different to every single user.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.
I don't have "faith" in science. I rather trust the scientific process. And I trust it not based on faith, but on evidence. As the scientific process has an impeccable track record of being able to answer questions.

I know of no other method of inquiry that achieves similar successes.
If you know of one, please point it out and show how it at least matches science in obtaining results.

Yes. Obviously you're right. The problem is you can explain anything with virtually no knowledge or understanding at all. 19th century scientists explained "gravity" quite glibly and still we don't really know what it is. Today we explain "evolution" yet don't even have a definition for consciousness!!!

If tomorrow you succeed in properly defining what consciousness is, then all the evidence in support of evolution (genetics, fossil record, geographic distribution of species, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc etc etc) would still exist and would still all scream evolution.

How would explaining how consciousness work have any effect on the mountains of evidence that species evolved from common ancestors?

It wouldn't. All the evidence would remain. And evolution theory would still explain it in testable ways with extreme explanatory power.

So you're suggesting you can predict the odds of a rabbit and her baby surviving an encounter with a bobcat without understanding the nature of consciousness.

This makes no sense to me.
If in some situation, "consciousness" plays a role in survival or reproduction, then "consciousness" would be just another variable in the overall fitness score of that organism. One of many.

I'm sorry reality is so complex and some things will never be understood through reductionism alone. This is reality where the evil can survive as the good perish or are otherwise changed. This is reality where the weak can flourish as the strong succumb. This is reality and beliefs play no role except to lead us straight back to these same beliefs in an endless circle.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with fitness in context of evolution.
Sounds like you really don't actually comprehend what "fit" means in evolutionary context.

It doesn't necessarily mean "stronger, faster, smarter".
Evolution is not a ladder.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory and facts of evolution are not true out of anyone's need for them to be true. To say so defines an ignorance of science and a lust for a personal view to replace evidence and understanding. Science and acceptance of science is not rejection of God by default. That notion is ludicrous and without dignity.

Accepting science based on the evidence is no more difficult and against God than reviewing the evidence of a crime and coming to a logical conclusion about the guilt of a suspect. The conclusion comes from the evidence and not from a demand that a particular conclusion be true. That is the basis of the OP here. There is the claim of a desired conclusion and everything else has to fit that conclusion. Or be ignored, altered, misinterpreted, or manipulated using a number of logically fallacious methods.

Indeed.

What it ends up in here, is a serious case of projection.

Like I said previously: they have to drag science down to their level of make-belief, just to be able to pretend as if both positions are on "equal footing".

I also love how they have a habbit of tell "evolutionists" that they believe evolution "on faith", as if that's a bad thing and a good reason why it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I off course agree that faith based beliefs are a bad thing and shouldn't be taken seriously.
The irony and projection though.... is amazing.

Something about glass houses and bricks, comes to mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The same can be said of pressures after the flood, and after migrating out from Eden.

Or pressures in Midgard, Middle Earth or Winterfell.
Or the pressures that existed before Last Thursday.

The main issue is not whether there was a need to adapt, of course, there was. The issue is when and how and in what nature that adapting took place.

No. Creation, as well as adaptations before and after the flood era, contributed also. You cannot give credit for existence itself to the mere act of adapting alone.

Darwin's mistake was to imagine that the selection process that goes on today also went on in the past in the same nature! He also made the mistake of ignoring the role of creation. So, rather than being a genius, the pood sod was very short-sighted and ignorant!

yawn

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Out of all the things you’ve said on this thread....this is the quote of the year!

Read it again......then apply it from our perspective... Thank you!

Evolution is extremely detectable, with great predictability and explanatory power.

That's why paleontologists are able to use this theory to predict the findings of very specific previously unknown fossils, with very specific anatomical features, in a very specific geological layer, in a very specific geographic location... and then actually find it, in precisely the predicted rock and location and with precisely the predicted anatomical features.

 

[Deeje]

Too bad none of it will stick. Within 2-3 posts, if even that much, she'll be back with the same strawmen and misrepresentations that have just been corrected.

Corrected...? When was there a correction? Did I miss it?

I saw no irrefutable evidence offered to support the validity of your theory, so where was the correction....?
A disagreement is not a correction......You crack me up...

 

[rational experiences]

The science history said Maths was the Sophia, female Immaculate heavenly spirit theme of God the stone.

Today science says that MATHS can virtually explain by the writing on paper or using a keyboard that a formula and numbers speaks on behalf of natural bodies.

And says it real...and then says God is a particle.

As a rational human after being preached to for centuries by those scientific philosophical maths believers, if God is a particle, when science says without MASS the particle would not exist, seeing he is standing and living on a body of MASS is about as ludicrous as you all are.

It is virtually claiming as a human my thoughts are better than your thoughts because I say so and so does my group who by peer history own everything and control everything and if you do not believe we will harm you scenario, lived again and again and again and again.

With archaeology claiming...look we lived before and all died...with science of the Church claiming, I preach that you all went to Hell.

With humans just living by the act of human sex wondering what you are all talking about.

So you have some humans who build machines claiming I know everything....yet they live on a Planet inside of an atmosphere that supports natural life as natural laws claiming out of space laws.

And you all say you are sane.

As a human and asking self a question, where did I think we came from originally, my answer is eternal. And that word says, always had existed, and always will exist. We however do not...we all know we die.

Then we are preached to by humans who claim scientific wisdom who say, no humans do not die, they are the eternal.

And you claim you are sane also.

As a spiritual human my claim to life is that my 2 human being parents, neither of who I personally live as...they owned their own life had sex. I live and die one day and believe that after I die, that I still own a spirit life in the state of spirit. Which I claim sanely will only be known when and if it occurs.

Everyone else either says I am an alien, or an evil spirit or began as a microbe.

So who is really the sane human in review of humans owning a human argument?

 

[Nimos]

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.

Fair enough, but to me that is speculation. How would you demonstrate that dinosaurs are able to leave fossil and not humans and certain other animals?

Saying that nature used to be different is not good enough, it has to be demonstrated.

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!

Lets twist this around, if the bible is correct and we are to believe that God created all animals based on their kinds, why the need for evolution in the first place? Why not simply keep all animals as they are and to never change at all.

You can't have it both ways:
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Micro and Macro evolution is the same, the only difference is the time involved, it uses the same mechanisms.

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

Im not going to claim to be an expert in this, if im not. But its the whole scientific community based on years and years of studies versus you claiming that nature were different back then.

So how do you demonstrate that all the scientists are wrong? And please do it by yourself, no sources from anyone else, if you think that, im being foolish to admit that I don't know all about these things. But that you yourself do, then please do that as it should be fairly easy then I guess.

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!

No, that is not how it works.

You claim that nature used to be different, so you prove it. That you do not accept their proofs, when it time after time have been demonstrated, is not their problem.

Here is 49 videos explaining some of evolution. My prediction is that you will not even watch one of them

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.

Sorry but you have to do better than that. Even if such creatures existed, we still find remains of prehistory whales etc. Assuming that ALL humans and certain animals (which ever they might be) all got eaten by some unknown creature, seems very unlikely and also wouldn't we be able to find this creature, or did another one eat that as well?

Fossils are formed in different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.

 

[Deeje]

If this was part of some grand agenda to control the world through weapons, it makes no difference whether or not God is alive.

Good grief. ...you missed the point entirely....its got nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
If you have strong religious believers in the world, they will fight for God to the last drop of their blood. No weapon will scare them into submission if they believe that God is on their side....look at the religious wars of the past centuries. God is a supreme power in the minds of those who believe in him...man is puny by comparison. They are way more afraid of God than of man.

But when you destroy God, you destroy HIS power. That means that there is nothing but man's power to threaten them. They will introduce their totalitarian rulership and the whole world will be subject to their rigid laws and cruel enforcement. Our every move will be monitored as well as our communications. This is already happening....we have been warned about this for some time now, by those who should know. Have you ever listened to interviews with Edward Snowden?

Im sorry, but it makes no sense at all.

Little wonder...it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.....please watch the videos if you really want to understand.....

 

[Nimos]

They will introduce their totalitarian rulership and the whole world will be subject to their rigid laws and cruel enforcement.

Ok stop... Who are they?

Furthermore, you talked about weapons to control the world and it would decide it.

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

I mentioned nuclear weapons as they are considered pretty powerful.

No weapon will scare them into submission if they believe that God is on their side....look at the religious wars of the past centuries.

What are you talking about, all throughout history countries have fought each other and surrendered? If they wouldn't why are they not still fighting, Christianity and Islam have been at war over Jerusalem in the past, so why did they stop? Why are they not still shooting each other every single day in a huge massive war?

Our every move will be monitored as well as our communications. This is already happening....we have been warned about this for some time now, by those who should know. Have you ever listened to interviews with Edward Snowden?

Yes, I have seen it. And yes we know that it happens constantly, companies get hacked as well. Information is valuable. It doesn't surprise me, but all countries does it. But what does that have to do with religion and God?

God is currently not dead, so why does it happen now then? What is your point with all this, do you think that if everyone was religious that these things wouldn't happen, when many of those in power today are religious?

Little wonder...it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.....please watch the videos if you really want to understand.....

Government changes over time, its not the same people sitting on the throne forever. And you have to relate this to the whole world, that everyone in power is behind it and trying to kill God, which was your point to begin with, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Species” is a description that is grossly misrepresented, IMO. It ‘suggests’ that a new “species” is something other than a new variety of an organism in the same taxonomic family. As Darwin himself observed.....his finches were all varieties of finches.....the tortoises were still clearly tortoises and the iguanas were marine adapted iguanas. What are we missing here? "Species" did not mean a new 'kind' of animal or bird...only a different "species" of the same 'kind' of animal or bird. Real science as opposed to theoretical science 'knows' this.

How many times must the law of monophy be explained to you, before you'll let go of this strawman that's been addressed a thousand times already?

So when did the taxonomy rankings begin?

The second living things reproduced with modification.

When did all creatures reach a point where science says that they belong to a certain family?

The second living things reproduced with modification.

It seems to me that anything before that point is all guesswork...

No. It's how reproduction works.

.but it must fit in with the beloved theory or it will be thrown out as invalid.

The evidence must fit, yes.
If we see a population of finches evolve into non-finches, then evolution is falsified as evolution can't handle violations of the law of monopy.

Please learn the model you are so hellbend on arguing against, before trying to argue against it.

If a construction company was contracted to build a number of structures in a city and they used different designs in their constructions but used the same architect and supplier for all their materials.... are the buildings related because they use the same designer and the same materials in different structures? Or is it that they have the same builder?

1. buildings don't reproduce with inheritability of traits and modification, nore are they organic. As such, they are a false analogy to biological reproducing organisms as they aren't subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry. This is the equivalent of arguing against gravity "because hammers don't fall down in the international spacestation".

2. That wouldn't produce nested hierarchies. My Xeon PC doesn't have an inactive remnant of a 4-86 cpy in it. But chickens do have inactive DNA to build teeth.

And here he is again...that phantom "common ancestor"...no mention of what it could have been...only that it has to have existed for that tree to be included in any science textbook. Without that trunk...there is no tree.....no branches...no nothing.

I've already addressed this and explained to you how we don't need to be able to identify the common ancestor to know that there was one.

Yet another mistake that you refuse to correct.
Two orphans from unknown parents can be determined to be siblings, without knowing who the parents were. All you need is the DNA of both siblings.

As I told you already: DNA is a great tool that allows us to establish relationships / level of relatedness.
Only one of many, btw. The conclusions from DNA can be cross referenced with all the others. And it fits. Every. Single. Time.

According to all I have read......everything on your tree here is assumed...not proven in any real way.

Then you must not have read the reference YOU YOURSELF have posted about what phylogenetic trees are. Remember? Your quote said that they are created BASED ON GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL DATA. Not based on assumptions. Based DATA.

Data from fully sequenced genomes, comparative anatomy of extant species, comparative anatomy of fossils, comparative anatomy of fossils and extant species, geographic distribution of species, geographic distribution of fossils, geographic distribution of genetic markers, etc etc etc etc.

These are facts leading to a conclusion. Not assumptions.
Just like there are no assumptions in a DNA paternity test. It's just comparing DNA, tracing markers and determining ancestry.

Your tree is a construction of imagination

No. It's a representation of data. As the reference YOU YOURSELF HAVE POSTED cleary explained.

Oh but there is....

Such as?

you honestly believe that any lines of evidence supporting common ancestry are independent?

That is a fact, yes.
You can draw a tree based on fully sequenced genomes.
You can draw a tree based on tracking a single genetic marker.
You can draw a tree based on comparative anatomy.
You can draw a tree based on tracking a single bone (like an inner ear bone)
etc

All these are independent studies.
And these trees all match with one another.
They didn't have to match. But they do.

Chickens didn't have to have inactive DNA to build teeth. But they do.
Humans and chimps didn't both have to have a broken (in the exact same manner) GULO gene. But they do.
The fish-tetrapod tiktaalik didn't have to be found in 370 million year old rock in a specific location in canada. But it was.


All these are independent lines of evidence that all converge on the exact same answer.
Denial isn't going to change that.

They are all supplied and backed by evolutionists who must of necessity all agree on the basics, even if they differ on the details (which they often do.)

Yes, in science it is a necessity to follow the evidence.
And since all evidence leads to evolution, all settle on evolution.

To disagree would see them laughed out of the hallowed halls of learning....

Yep. Just like a Stork Theorist would be laughed out of the embryology department, or how a flat earther or a geocentrist would be laughed out as well.

There comes a point where denial is no longer defendable.

you only have to listen to the likes of Dawkins or Coyne to see what I mean. Preaching to the converted doesn't really count.

Or Ken Miller or Francis Collins.
Both devout christians, btw.

I could probably say the same about you....if you read the article without the rose colored glasses, it is full of speculation and assumptions about what they want to believe is true about Tiktaalik. If it is what they predicted, when why the surprise at what they found?

What they actually predicted was spot on: the location, the age and the fact that it would have BOTH fish and tetrapod traits.

The stuff they found surprising / exciting were about details where they had certain expectations / informed guesses. None of these invalidates the enormous success of their prediction. The prediction being the location, age and that it would feature fish-tetrapod transitional traits. And that is exactly what Tiktaalik is: a fishy tetrpod, found in exactly the location and rock they predicted it would be in.

This is the elephant in the room that you are hellbend on ignoring, by trying to distract into details that are irrelevant to this huge point.

How did they know where to look?
How did they know what age it would be?
How did they know about the transitional fish-tetrpod features it would have?

If evolution is so wrong, why did they find ANYTHING AT ALL? Let alone something that matches their prediction so amazingly well?

Do you not know the difference between guesses and facts? If they went looking for a creature that fitted their expectations, how could they not interpret what they found to fit the bill?

It did fit the bill. It's a fishy-tetrapod of the correct age in the correct location.
See this is what I meant when I said that you are so focussing on the irrelevant detail / pixel, that you're completely losing track of the bigger picture.

They didn't predict an entire body plan, right down to the smallest bone structures.
Instead, they predicted a mix of fish and tetrapod traits. And that's exactly what they found.

Every time there is some grand announcement about another "find" that supports evolution, we see that the excitement does not match the actuality of the find...only the guesswork of what they imply....its just a clever illusion IMO.

Still in denial I see.

Once more:
They predicted the age, the location and that it would have a mix of fish and tetrapod traits.

How does Tiktaalik not match that prediction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Corrected...?

Case in point.........

When was there a correction?

In every post.

Did I miss it?

As usual... I just finished typing a reply to you in which I ONCE AGAIN had to explain the law of monophy. I lost count how many times I had to do that in this thread alone.

I saw no irrefutable evidence offered to support the validity of your theory,

Because your bible-goggles are blinding you.
The point exactly when I said that you refuse to correct yourself and acknowledge your mistakes.

so where was the correction....?

In every post.

A disagreement is not a correction......You crack me up...

When you say stupid stuff like "THEY ARE STILL FINCHES!" as if it's an argument against evolution, then that's not mere disagreement. That's just you being demonstrably wrong and once again in need of having the law of monophy explained to you. After which you just ignore that explanation and repeat your dumb claim again a post or two later.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Please stop...

There are plenty of christian evolutionary biologists, who's mere existance simply destroys this silly conspiratory nonsense.

ps: the judge in the dover trial... a christian republican.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you have strong religious believers in the world, they will fight for God to the last drop of their blood.

Like we see in countries like Syria.

No weapon will scare them into submission if they believe that God is on their side....look at the religious wars of the past centuries.

No need to go to past centuries. We can see today in countries like Syria, or in cities like Paris, the kind of misery such behaviour triggers.

But when you destroy God, you destroy HIS power. That means that there is nothing but man's power to threaten them. They will introduce their totalitarian rulership and the whole world will be subject to their rigid laws and cruel enforcement. Our every move will be monitored as well as our communications. This is already happening....we have been warned about this for some time now, by those who should know. Have you ever listened to interviews with Edward Snowden?

That was done by the most religious country in the west, where being an atheist will even effectively rule you out of any position of power in politics.



Also, what biologists (many of which are also theists, btw) have to do with this, is yet another mystery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is your point with all this, do you think that if everyone was religious that these things wouldn't happen, when many of those in power today are religious?

Her point is derailment and distraction of her strawmen and misrepresentations of science.
Her point is the demonization of science and the dehumanization of anyone who doesn't share her religious dogma.

It's painfully obvious.

Government changes over time, its not the same people sitting on the throne forever.

True and you don't even need to go there.

Her 'example' is from the US. The most religious country in the west. A country, where you have exactly almost zero chance of being elected into office if you don't out as a christian and praise god after every speech.

 

[Deeje]

Who is they?

Well there is "them" and "us"...who do you think "they" are? Watch the videos.....

Furthermore, you talked about weapons to control the world and it would decide it.

The single world government that is coming, will be given power and authority by all the nations on earth. They will hold power over all of us....and we will have no say in the matter. We will lose all the freedoms that anyone has ever fought for. Totalitarian rulerships do not respect liberty and freedom.....only enforced compliance.

We are facing a crisis with unprecedented impact on the whole world....a pandemic that has brought the world to its knees in so many ways. Life has been altered for everyone.

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

I mentioned nuclear weapons as they are considered pretty powerful.

The weapons do not have to be nuclear.....a club in the hand of someone in authority who does not respect your freedom is enough.....and a virus can also be used as a weapon. This will not be over any time soon. Continuing waves of this virus are predicted. It has already crippled the world....how will it survive...? Wait and see.

Yes, I have seen it. And yes we know that it happens constantly, companies get hacked as well. Information is valuable. It doesn't surprise me, but all countries does it. But what does that have to do with religion and God?

Its not just about companies getting hacked....it is about our personal privacy being invaded in the worst ways. Our activities being monitored and our contacts being scrutinized and used against us. Big Brother is rising up....with the technology he has been waiting for.

God is currently not dead, so why does it happen now then? What is your point with all this, do you think that if everyone was religious that these things wouldn't happen, when many of those in power today are religious?

Religion is hand in glove with politics....rotten to the core...a very unholy alliance. But it will be seen as an impediment to control and dispensed with. Killing off God suits their agenda...and its plain to see that God is dying in the hearts and minds of so many.

Government changes over time, its not the same people sitting on the throne for ever. And you have to relate this to the whole world, that everyone in power is behind it and trying to kill God, which was your point to begin with, right?

The change that is coming will be the last human rulership on this earth. That is what the Bible predicts. It is amazing to watch prophesy being fulfilled....