Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Dan From Smithville]

To me they are being inconsistent with their arguments.

I suspect i know why as I was in that position at one point. It is purely confirmation bias because the agenda is to prove ones viewpoint right at all costs whereas it is the objective to discredit all those who contradict you.

It is the same reason why certain muslims and christians think that the other religions holy book has so many contradictions and errors while maintaining the belief that their own holy book is flawless.

Personally, I think that it means we do not fully understand or comprehend the meaning of scripture. Those that claim to fully and correctly interpret it are fooling themselves and are deluded to their own bias.

Rejection of the flaws found within holy text is a common sin among some believers in my opinion. Everyone believes their holy writings are perfect and their interpretations are perfect while the other guys are flawed or even false. In the US, this has been taken to the extreme in some cases where you see the right to an opinion transformed to mean my opinion is right. It is why we have such decisive politics and so many different religions and sects within religions.

I think you have got a pretty good grasp on the main points.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep got it......



Hang on...how come we have jumped from gases to organisms?

Are you made of gas? Does Mrs Revoltingest think so? (better not answer that)



I marvel at the perfection of the creatures I posted...these are not shots in the dark or close enough to the real McCoy, but perfect replicas of the their environments.....I can't see how that takes place accidentally. If you study the pictures closely, you will see absolute mimicry.



There is no real evidence (proof) that evolution on the macro scale ever took place. We clearly see adaptation, but this is confined to one family of related creatures....it never takes any creature out of, or beyond its taxonomy. If evolution were true then many species morphed into completely different creatures. (see whale evolution as an example) The theory is based on assumptions and suggestions about what "may have"..."might have"..."could have" taken place in the past. But since no one was there to document the process, science is left with bits of circumstantial evidence, the pieces of which they have cleverly strung together to tell the story without any concrete proof ever being offered. They "believe" that it happened that way. I "believe" that the Creator designed his families of creatures with the ability to adapt and to create many new varieties within those families. This is the only part of evolution that they can actually prove. To suggest that adaptation can go beyond that is mere speculation.....based on pure imagination.

Darwin did not observe evolution on the Galapagos Islands.....he saw adaptation....and ran away with an idea.

When science tells you that it has "mountains of evidence"....it really has 'mountains' of suggestions and unprovable assertions.

There is lots of evidence for macro-evolution, you just deny it or try to wave it away. Your last line is an assertion that is refuted by the evidence. I get a good laugh every time you try to tell us we have a squeaky snake and you have just the oil we need.

Adaptation is evolution. Darwin observed it. Recorded it. Collated all of it. He gave us a mechanism explaining all that adaptation. It changed biology ever since. It turned creationists into world-class class, mental gymnasts and denialists in the process. A consequence and not by design.

 

[nPeace]

Evolution isn't an 'opinion'; it is a proven fact/theory.

There is no such thing as a proven theory.
A proven theory cannot exist, because once it’s proven, it’s no longer a theory.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth.
A scientific fact is not a fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true..

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

 

[Altfish]

There is no such thing as a proven theory.
A proven theory cannot exist, because once it’s proven, it’s no longer a theory.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth.
A scientific fact is not a fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true..

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

...and pigs can fly

 

[nPeace]

...and pigs can fly

No. That's not true either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I completely disagree -except that what you say is true of very crude and simple creativity/manufacturing.

The same applies accross the board.
We recognise design by contrasting what we know about manufacturing against natural processes.
This requires knowledge of both.

No marks are left on molecules

Yet we can recognise molecules that are of unnatural origin.

, for example, if one were to create a molecule which nature would not produce.

Then either we understand the manufacturing process that can produce it, or the answer is "we don't know how it was produced". At which point it could be a natural process we do not understand yet OR it was artificially manufactured.

(A molecule would be simple -so any purpose would not be necessarily as readily apparent as something more complex and obviously purposeful, however)

The "purpose" of an object plays little to no role at all in the detection of design / manufacturing.

The post you are replying to, describes how design is detected. You might not agree for some reason, but surely you've noticed that any potential or possible "purpose" of the object in question, was not part of my criteria?

Will try to get back to why life does have such characteristics later -but both life and its environment should be considered.

I don't see why.
You are most welcome and invited to lay out your reasons.

But I have a feeling it will come down to an argument from ignorance.
I'ld love to be proven wrong on that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it's one or the other

The evolutionary process, is neither.

but as the post above demonstrates
the chemical mechanism that God set is motion
is not being controlled at every level

You mean, "as the post above CLAIMED"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess it all boils down to what you believe, and why you believe it.

For believers, sure.
For people who think it is important to have rational justification for what they believe, it instead all boils down to what the evidence is.

Nothing comes from nothing

Who said otherwise, especially in context of the evolution of biodiversity?

and "nature" is not of itself an intelligent entity

Neither does it need to be.

Nature is programmed, like everything else in the universe

This is a claim that requires demonstration.

...laws need a law maker.

The "lawmaker" of the "laws" are HUMANS.
The laws of physics etc are just our human attempt at describing how reality works.

What these laws are are just abstract descriptions of what we observe, of how the universe works in terms of interaction of the various forces and matter.

The statement "laws need a lawmaker" might sound nice, but it makes no sense when applied to natural law. These aren't laws like what you learn about when you are a lawyer, you know.......

Every program that involves the transmission of information has to be authored by an intelligent mind and carried out according to the programmer's instructions.

What transmission of information? What are you talking about?

For something to demonstrate design, it has to have a designer...where in human experience is that not so?

In every instance of natural design.

I see creation as part of the Creator's overall purpose.....the reason why anything exists. If there is no reason for why anything exists, then there is no hope of anything getting any better

Good for you. Your personal emotional need for "hope" though, has no bearing on what is actually the case in reality.

We as a species are on a downward spiral

I completely disagree. We are doing better then ever in the entire history of humanity.

and if the Creator does not halt this destructive process, then he is opposing the purpose of his own creation...and his first purpose for this planet and the living things upon it will go unfulfilled. As the Almighty, I believe that he will never let that happen.

You can believe what you wish off course.
But your beliefs don't dictate reality.

Why do you think we are here?

Why do you think that that question has an answer on cosmic scale?
Why am I here? Beause my parents had sex.

I can give you answers to the "how am I here?" question.
The "why" question resonates to me as quite silly.

It's a loaded question. It assumes there is some cosmic reason for human life while you haven't established that at all. It's just what you believe religiously.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The adaptations for carnivory or herbivory would be in response to the environment. The environment includes other members of a species, competitive species, prey species, and all the other biotic and abiotic components that impact a population.

I agree. I think that the authors of Genesis were describing an idealized state and interjecting their own ideas of what that means into the story, including very fanciful notions. It is a shame that only fragments of some of the oral tradition exist, pieced together in Genesis. It would be fascinating and useful to have had all of them captured in writing, for us to review and compare.

The reality is that the environment changes and evolution moves to optimize life to those changes with the materials on hand. Populations of herbivores would eventually over-produce and overwhelm their food supply leading to massive starvation and death. Without a mechanism for change or population regulation beyond famine, the cycle would likely just repeat over and over.

It would indeed be interesting to see the fleshed out details of the Genesis account.

What you say about the starvation and death doesnt sound like the ideal environment.

 

[Altfish]

No. That's not true either.

What about unicorns?
Since the word “unicorn” appears in the King James Version of the Bible nine times – in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9,10, Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10 and in Isaiah 34:7

 

[Samael_Khan]

iD is just religion disguised as science or piggy-backed into a straw version of science. The movement uses it to get a specific version of religion taught at public expense. Debunking evolution is a part of it, but not all of it. Attempts have been made to claim evidence for God, but these have all failed. Irreducible complexity is a prominent failure.

Theory is derived from the evidence, while ID religion is preconceived and attempts to bend or break the evidence to fit.

It sounds like a desperate attempt.

And it is interesting that it targets a specific versiom of religion because that line of thinking doesnt apply to that specific religion only and other religions who believe in a God dont necessarily support that view either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, no, no....you have to understand that science requires no "proof"......they just need "evidence" which they can interpret to suit what they want to believe. There is NO PROOF for any of it. Its a monumental con job.

Saying stuff like this, utterly destroys every ounce of credibility you have.

Invoking massive conspiracy theories the extent of which the word has never seen before, spanning some 200 years and involving millions of scientists to pull off this "con job".

It's beyond ridiculous. It's even immensly more absurd then the conspiracy that NASA never landed on the moon.

Things really have not changed much down through the ages. Evolution is in vogue now because people have been convinced that it is a scientific fact. But the fact is...there are no facts.

In the first century C.E., when Greek philosophy and Roman law were in vogue, the apostle Paul was inspired to write: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their own cunning.’ And again: ‘Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.’ Hence let no one be boasting in men.” (1 Corinthians 3:19-21)

I believe that there will be no unbelievers in the world in the near future....."the reasonings of the wise men" will come to nothing....and so will all who swallow their unproven theories.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I do.....but it doesn't explain how all the diverse creatures on this planet supposedly came from a single celled organism.....that just happened to pop into existence in the primordial soup one day, for no apparent reason.

Can you tell me how that works?

Evolution is not abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not evolution.


I'm sure you've been informed on that fact a couple thousand times already.

But hey.... who cares about intellectual honesty when you're arguing for Jesus ha?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Personally, I think that it means we do not fully understand or comprehend the meaning of scripture. Those that claim to fully and correctly interpret it are fooling themselves and are deluded to their own bias.

Rejection of the flaws found within holy text is a common sin among some believers in my opinion. Everyone believes their holy writings are perfect and their interpretations are perfect while the other guys are flawed or even false. In the US, this has been taken to the extreme in some cases where you see the right to an opinion transformed to mean my opinion is right. It is why we have such decisive politics and so many different religions and sects within religions.

I think you have got a pretty good grasp on the main points.

I would definitely think that people dont have the full understanding of what the scripture is intended to mean. But I personally like the exercise of deciphering the different options. They reveal a lot.

I would think that one of the joys in interpreting scripture are the various optional views of the non essentials. Believing that only one viewpoint works will lead to people having to lie to themselves and prevents them from adapting their beliefs to new evidence.

I do see the extremes in America which is weird to me. I cant comprehend for instance how someone can be politically either left or right exclusively or democrat or republican exclusively. Those are labels that pidgeon hole people. If I was in America i would agree with republicans regarfing certain things and the democrats on other things. I also dont get why the US only has 2 political parties (unless i am wrong in this).

I certainly hope I have a good grasp on the main points. Thanks.

 

[Deeje]

You really have swallowed the creationist kool-aid.
I have seen evolution in action in my garden over the last 10-years. We have a plant called the dandelion, it grows about 150mm high and has a yellow flower, it is a bit of a nuisance, especially when it gets in the lawn. Hence I mow them down; but I have now noticed that a strain has emerged that is about 20mm high and still flowers.
I can't believe that you criticise science for 'interpreting' results/facts. Religion is built on that.

LOL...love this...Whose swallowed the Kool Ade? What you are describing is adaptation...its been covered quite extensively in my replies. I have no problem with adaptation...but that is not macro-evolution however.

The numbers suggest you are wrong about there being no unbelievers in the near future, with the Christian Right behaving like they are in the US, I think the opposite is more likely.

LOL again....I don't think you got the point of me saying that.

Just as there were no 'unbelievers' when the flood came....so there will be no unbelievers when the end of this present system comes.

 

[Deeje]

Not ducks this time around?

Just Accidental?

I thought it was time for another thread on the wonders of creation.

That last thread was some time ago...it did pretty well.....

Replies: 5,484
Views: 154,028

 

[exchemist]

Nature did these, soulless Mother Nature, accidentally created diverse and beautiful beings. Everyone knows macro-Evolution is not only godless but soulless.

Correct. And so it should be.

It is not the business of science to stray into theology. In fact, it is imperative for scientific integrity that theology is kept out of it.

Nothing prevents the religious believer from making what seems to him or her a more complete view of existence by adding souls or other metaphysical concepts to what science reveals about the natural world. But one should not expect science to do that job.

 

[exchemist]

Just a question to anybody:

To me it seems like intelligent design and evolution are two different categories.

Intelligent design is dealing with who created life, but isnt dealing with processes of how life changed over time.

Evolution explains processes only.

Since they explain different things doesnt that mean that evolution cant be debunked by someone saying that a designer created everything?

It is like trying to debunk the validity of painting processes by claiming that an artist created the painting.

You're absolutely right that the goals are quite different, just as you describe.

However ID is an attempt to merge these two things together, by asserting there is scientific evidence of miraculous intervention at certain stages in the development of life on earth. This is the trick the architects of ID hope to pull off, with enough stupid and/or biased legislators in Southern states of the USA to get the law changed so that they can teach about God in school science lessons. They have failed many times but have not given up yet.

In the meantime, they have bamboozled quite a number of bible-belt Protestants, and even a few Catholics, into thinking that there really is scientifically sound evidence of miracles in the development of life. So not all ID followers are dishonest. Some have just been taken in by it, because they want it to be so and don't understand how science works. (By the way, ID has even been known to appeal to some religiously minded medical doctors and engineers, as these branches of science tend to focus mostly on applying existing knowledge rather than the process of researching the workings of nature.)

 

[Deeje]

There's no clear evidence for how life first originated.

But that's abiogenesis, NOT evolution.

Sorry, was I not supposed to mention that abiogenesis is also a branch of science? Its no further forward in explaining how life originated than it ever was. Why do you suppose that is? Its funny to me how evolutionists are so quick to divorce themselves from the subject....they run a mile at the mere mention of how life began.....what is the point of arguing how life changed if you have no idea how it got here?

And if you actually DID understand evolution and natural selection, then you wouldn't claim that evolution and natural selection couldn't explain how all the diverse creatures on this planet supposedly came from a single celled organism. Evolution and natural selection explains it very well.

There is no proof that single celled organisms morphed into more complex living creatures....that is an unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing but suggestion. Natural selection is definitely seen in nature but it does not answer the question of how a microscopic single cell somehow found a way to change itself into a creature the size of a three story building! Apparently all you have to do is throw a few million years into the equation. Its the very foundation upon which evolution is built, but the cracks open up under scrutiny. If your foundation is flimsy, how is the building going to keep standing?

Adaptation within a related family of creatures is nothing close to what is suggested by science at the very beginning. Yet that is what they base their theory upon. Who can they go back and ask?....the fossils? Sorry but they ain't sayin' much. Besides which fact that scientists can make them say whatever they wish.

Evidence is not proof....but proof is evidence.....and science is very light on when it comes to showing us how the earliest processes of their evolutionary chain took place.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You're absolutely right that the goals are quite different, just as you describe.

However ID is an attempt to merge these two things together, by asserting there is scientific evidence of miraculous intervention at certain stages in the development of life on earth. This is the trick the architects of ID hope to pull off, with enough stupid and/or biased legislators in Southern states of the USA to get the law changed so that they can teach about God in school science lessons. They have failed many times but have not given up yet.

In the meantime, they have bamboozled quite a number of bible-belt Protestants, and even a few Catholics, into thinking that there really is scientifically sound evidence of miracles in the development of life. So not all ID followers are dishonest. Some have just been taken in by it, because they want it to be so and don't understand how science works. (By the way, ID has even been known to appeal to some religiously minded medical doctors and engineers, as these branches of science tend to focus mostly on applying existing knowledge rather than the process of researching the workings of nature.)

How does one prove scientifically if something is a miracle if miracles by their nature shouldnt be able to be examined by science? I would think that they would try and disprove certain scientific conclusions and then make an appeal from ignorance.

I have seen professors, doctors and engineers who support ID but they make an appeal from ignorance. Also i do not know their credibility in the fields that support the ToE. Michael Behe is one that comes to mind.

Since these professionals apply existing knowledge rather than studying the workings of nature, using them to promote the idea would be an effective deception to the ignorant because they would view them as intelligent and involved in science and assume that they know what they are talking about.