Evidence God Is

[nPeace]

The POPULATION changed color! Sheesh -- How could you so misunderstand these posts? Do I have to dissect and display every sentence?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

I think you have to do more than make statements... especially when they are not facts.
So I want to give you a chance to do that. Please show me any facts that demonstrate that black peppered moths change to white colored ones.
Also, can you tell me please, Is octopus camouflage evolution? Has octopuses evolved every time they change color. Is that what the theory of evolution really about?

Oh. I could "Sheesh" too.

Knowledge begins with observation and speculation; with thought-experiments, odd bones, strange occurrences, &c. Science collects these and comes up with theorems explaining them, but till these theorems are tested and reviewed by others they won't rise to the level of theory.

Thanks, but you didn't really address my question. Why are they in text books and museums, when they have not been confirmed scientifically.
Is that how modern science works. One can just speculate, and it is accepted as a scientific truth?

 

[Polymath257]

I think you have to do more than make statements... especially when they are not facts.
So I want to give you a chance to do that. Please show me any facts that demonstrate that black peppered moths change to white colored ones.

No individual changed color. It is the descendants of black moths that were white.

Also, can you tell me please, Is octopus camouflage evolution? Has octopuses evolved every time they change color. Is that what the theory of evolution really about?

No, that is not evolution. it is not a genetic change. it is not a change in the genetics of a population.

Oh. I could "Sheesh" too.

You seem to have the idea that changes in an individual are evolution. THEY ARE NOT. Evolution has to do with the genetic changes in populations over generations.

 

[nPeace]

I mean any conceivable alternative explanation. I know of none. Please inform me if you know of any.

Okay. Do you have a pen and notepad? It's best not to put it on an electrical device, since the data can be lost. I don't want you asking me this again. So are you ready...

Methodological naturalism does not deal with the supernatural, nor spirituality. Scientists deals with what they consider natural... but you didn't need me to tell you this did you?

What's the difference? Degree of certainty?
Do you believe or know that germs cause disease; that the Earth orbits the Sun? The ToE is more extensively evidenced than either of these theories.

In your opinion.
Do I know the earth orbits the sun? No.
I see no need to debate what they tell me, as I don't have any evidence otherwise to argue against it. So I accept it.
Is the earth spinning at an average of 1000 miles per hour, and hurtling through space at 66,616 mph?
I don't know. It has no bearing on the price of oil.
The theory that all life evolved from one common ancestor, does. It causes one to go ape.
If I were not on a debate forum, do you imagine I would be talking about evolution? No. The whole world could believe it, I would still be buying oil. I mean, much of America has accepted gay marriage - except for a few fanatics like me , I still go to the toilet, eat food, and sleep comfortable.

Apparently you're either unaware of the evidence or unable to see the connections, or maybe...unwilling?
You have an awfully Cartesian definition of "know," don't you think? By your criterion no-one "knows" anything. The word becomes meaningless.
Try me.

Apparently you're either unaware of the lack of evidence or just wanting there to be a connections, or maybe...unwilling to admit?
Wow. That went well. Got us far too.

Cartesian???
Sorry. I never heard of him.
I know when I want to use the toilet. So I don't agree with you... at all.

I've pointed it out many times. We've all been saying it. You keep making statements and asking questions that clearly indicate a lack of understanding. What perplexes me is why you can't seem to grasp the explanations you've been offered and, despite a professed interest in the subject, you don't seem to have made any effort either to understand or to research the subject. Everything we tell you goes in one ear and out the other.

You are just making statements.
I don't know... are you are accustomed doing that on debate forums, and having people say yeah?
I showed you from a reliable source, that one mutation can make an alteration to an organisms part.

I mentioned, "Notice the cat's ear is not becoming a wing." There was a noticeable change... in a very short time, mind you.
You reacted as though I said something foreign to what is proposed for evolution.

Have you not said, these are the things that happen?

The limb fossils show a gradual transition over time to legs, and the legs to wings, arms, paddles...

I am sure I have not misunderstood you.
Perhaps, rather than make statements, why not show me where I am wrong.
I have given examples.

Hopefully, it's not just a case of your trying to do what I have seen done on these forums and others - the usual argumentum ad hominem.

 

[Valjean]

I think you have to do more than make statements... especially when they are not facts.
So I want to give you a chance to do that. Please show me any facts that demonstrate that black peppered moths change to white colored ones.
Also, can you tell me please, Is octopus camouflage evolution? Has octopuses evolved every time they change color. Is that what the theory of evolution really about?

Oh. I could "Sheesh" too.


Thanks, but you didn't really address my question. Why are they in text books and museums, when they have not been confirmed scientifically.
Is that how modern science works. One can just speculate, and it is accepted as a scientific truth?

You're trolling. You're asking questions you already know the answer to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you have to do more than make statements... especially when they are not facts.
So I want to give you a chance to do that. Please show me any facts that demonstrate that black peppered moths change to white colored ones.
Also, can you tell me please, Is octopus camouflage evolution? Has octopuses evolved every time they change color. Is that what the theory of evolution really about?

Oh. I could "Sheesh" too.


Thanks, but you didn't really address my question. Why are they in text books and museums, when they have not been confirmed scientifically.
Is that how modern science works. One can just speculate, and it is accepted as a scientific truth?

Just FYI: every post you make on this subject, exposes 2 major things:
- you really have very little to no knowledge on how the evolutionary process actually works and what the theory of evolution actually says

- you show zero intention or willingnes to actually learning what it actually says. People keep correcting your many mistakes and you continue to ignore it and just go back to the same falsehoods that have already been addressed countless times.

 

[Valjean]

Okay. Do you have a pen and notepad? It's best not to put it on an electrical device, since the data can be lost. I don't want you asking me this again. So are you ready...

Methodological naturalism does not deal with the supernatural, nor spirituality. Scientists deals with what they consider natural... but you didn't need me to tell you this did you?


In your opinion.
Do I know the earth orbits the sun? No.
I see no need to debate what they tell me, as I don't have any evidence otherwise to argue against it. So I accept it.
Is the earth spinning at an average of 1000 miles per hour, and hurtling through space at 66,616 mph?
I don't know. It has no bearing on the price of oil.
The theory that all life evolved from one common ancestor, does. It causes one to go ape.
If I were not on a debate forum, do you imagine I would be talking about evolution? No. The whole world could believe it, I would still be buying oil. I mean, much of America has accepted gay marriage - except for a few fanatics like me , I still go to the toilet, eat food, and sleep comfortable.


Apparently you're either unaware of the lack of evidence or just wanting there to be a connections, or maybe...unwilling to admit?
Wow. That went well. Got us far too.

Cartesian???
Sorry. I never heard of him.
I know when I want to use the toilet. So I don't agree with you... at all.


You are just making statements.
I don't know... are you are accustomed doing that on debate forums, and having people say yeah?
I showed you from a reliable source, that one mutation can make an alteration to an organisms part.

I mentioned, "Notice the cat's ear is not becoming a wing." There was a noticeable change... in a very short time, mind you.
You reacted as though I said something foreign to what is proposed for evolution.

Have you not said, these are the things that happen?


I am sure I have not misunderstood you.
Perhaps, rather than make statements, why not show me where I am wrong.
I have given examples.

Hopefully, it's not just a case of your trying to do what I have seen done on these forums and others - the usual argumentum ad hominem.

nPeace, I've lost my patience with you. You're impossibly obtuse.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. Do you have a pen and notepad? It's best not to put it on an electrical device, since the data can be lost. I don't want you asking me this again. So are you ready...

Methodological naturalism does not deal with the supernatural, nor spirituality. Scientists deals with what they consider natural... but you didn't need me to tell you this did you?

Do you realize this did not answer the question?

Here is the question:

I mean any conceivable alternative explanation. I know of none. Please inform me if you know of any.

How does your response give an alternative explanation other than why the supernatural tends not to be a scientific explanation?

In your opinion.
Do I know the earth orbits the sun? No.
I see no need to debate what they tell me, as I don't have any evidence otherwise to argue against it. So I accept it.
Is the earth spinning at an average of 1000 miles per hour, and hurtling through space at 66,616 mph?
I don't know. It has no bearing on the price of oil.

I see. So it doesn't matter to you whether it is true or not. So you can either ignore it or not depending on your feelings.

The theory that all life evolved from one common ancestor, does. It causes one to go ape.

Really? How does it affect the price of oil to know we are related to the other great apes?

If I were not on a debate forum, do you imagine I would be talking about evolution? No. The whole world could believe it, I would still be buying oil. I mean, much of America has accepted gay marriage - except for a few fanatics like me , I still go to the toilet, eat food, and sleep comfortable.

So you can ignore inconvenient truths if you want. I get it.

 

[nPeace]

I'm fascinated. Please enlighten me.

Yippee. It will be my pleasure.

Science ... begins with evidence, formulates an explanation for it, tests the explanation, invites others to find flaws in it, and only then concludes the explanation is factual. It continues researching the subject, repeating the process and inviting criticism.

What evidence did the theory of evolution begin with?
Just seeing a diversity in life forms on the earth.

Actually, religion does much better than that. We see a bunch of written documents. Diverse forms of worship are evident, but that's not the primary focus.

The hundreds of manuscripts found, collected, examined and studied, have resulted in what we have today, known as the Bible - central to religious belief, for the majority of worshipers.

Yes, there is a process that involves rigorous scientific analysis.

Spoiler: Biblical archaeology

Biblical archaeology
Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of Judaism and Christianity.

Archaeology is a science, not in the Aristotelian sense of cognitio certa per causas but in the modern sense of systematic knowledge.
Biblical archaeology can shed light on the knowledge that we have regarding certain historical data described in the biblical stories such as governments, people, battles and cities.

It allows us to provide some specific details reflected in the books of the bible for example the Siloam Tunnel, the Pool of Bethesda, Calvary and others that effectively relate to those described in the biblical stories.

Biblical archaeology lends fundamental support to exegetical studies.
The development of biblical archaeology has been marked by different periods:

Ancient: Although archaeology can be considered to be a modern science it should be recognized that many historical authors have left valuable documents that even today are essential reading for students of biblical archaeology. The most important historical sources include Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the Diary of Egeria. Egeria or Aetheria, was a Spanish woman who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land between 381 and 384. Her diary of the journey, which was a surprisingly adventurous journey for a woman of that time, is a source of study and research even today.

Yes, like your science, there are debates, and opinions, from which they arrive at consensus.

While they form theirs, Jesus' followers form their own.
There ya go.
Oh, and you're welcomed.

 

[Polymath257]

Yippee. It will be my pleasure.


What evidence did the theory of evolution begin with?
Just seeing a diversity in life forms on the earth.

Wrong. Not just the diversity, but how that diversity is distributed. And how the fossils of related organisms are distributed. And when they appear and disappear in the fossil record. And genetics and how that tells us about relations. And biochemistry and how that shows the common ancestry.

Actually, religion does much better than that. We see a bunch of written documents. Diverse forms of worship are evident, but that's not the primary focus.

The hundreds of manuscripts found, collected, examined and studied, have resulted in what we have today, known as the Bible - central to religious belief, for the majority of worshipers.

Yes, there is a process that involves rigorous scientific analysis.

Spoiler: Biblical archaeology

Biblical archaeology
Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of Judaism and Christianity.

Archaeology is a science, not in the Aristotelian sense of cognitio certa per causas but in the modern sense of systematic knowledge.
Biblical archaeology can shed light on the knowledge that we have regarding certain historical data described in the biblical stories such as governments, people, battles and cities.

It allows us to provide some specific details reflected in the books of the bible for example the Siloam Tunnel, the Pool of Bethesda, Calvary and others that effectively relate to those described in the biblical stories.

Biblical archaeology lends fundamental support to exegetical studies.
The development of biblical archaeology has been marked by different periods:

Ancient: Although archaeology can be considered to be a modern science it should be recognized that many historical authors have left valuable documents that even today are essential reading for students of biblical archaeology. The most important historical sources include Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the Diary of Egeria. Egeria or Aetheria, was a Spanish woman who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land between 381 and 384. Her diary of the journey, which was a surprisingly adventurous journey for a woman of that time, is a source of study and research even today.

Yes, like your science, there are debates, and opinions, from which they arrive at consensus.

While they form theirs, Jesus' followers form their own.
There ya go.
Oh, and you're welcomed.

Too bad that actual archeology demonstrates that most of the Pentateuch is mythical. The Bible is a collection of writings from those trying to promote a particular viewpoint. That bias means they often got the details wrong.

 

[nPeace]

No individual changed color. It is the descendants of black moths that were white.

So this experiment was a total joke.

No, that is not evolution. it is not a genetic change. it is not a change in the genetics of a population.

Thank you.

You seem to have the idea that changes in an individual are evolution. THEY ARE NOT. Evolution has to do with the genetic changes in populations over generations.

I don't know how you arrived at, "You seem to have the idea that changes in an individual are evolution".
However, I think some persons do have a hard time explaining things clearly. I wouldn't say that is my fault.

 

[nPeace]

You're trolling. You're asking questions you already know the answer to.

Me? Trolling?
Okay, buddy. Nice chatting with you.
So you know, I ask questions for clarity and explanation, as I proceed with my argument. That all.

 

[nPeace]

nPeace, I've lost my patience with you. You're impossibly obtuse.

So now you resort to outright insults.
It seems you were indeed using Ad hominem then.
That's disappointing, but I understand.
I'm sorry though. Debate forums don't work quite like that. If one is on a debate forum, for the purpose of converting persons to their philosophical or religious ideas, I think they should expect that everyone is not going to be "bird fed".
Perhaps a church may be the better option.

Anyway, I'm sorry to learn this, in this way, as I had hope for you, if anyone else, on the opposing side.
Take care.

 

[nPeace]

Do you realize this did not answer the question?

Here is the question:



How does your response give an alternative explanation other than why the supernatural tends not to be a scientific explanation?

It did answer the question.
I don't think you are slow and obtuse. So if you didn't get the answer, perhaps there is something else preventing you getting it. Maybe go through the thread from the beginning.

I see. So it doesn't matter to you whether it is true or not. So you can either ignore it or not depending on your feelings.

No.You don't see at all. What?

Really? How does it affect the price of oil to know we are related to the other great apes?

So you can ignore inconvenient truths if you want. I get it.

No. No you do not get it.
I think you want to believe what you want. That's it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, I think some persons do have a hard time explaining things clearly. I wouldn't say that is my fault.

It doesn't seem to be "some" persons. It seems to be ALL persons.

So what is more likely? That EVERYBODY has a hard time explaining things clearly to you?

Or that YOU are having a hard time comprehending the explanations or have a mental dogmatic religious block in your head that prevents you from even trying to understand?

I'm going for the latter.

12-year old kids understand these dumbed down explanations. My 12-year old cousin certainly has no problems understanding his biology courses...

I don't think the problem here, is in the explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So now you resort to outright insults.
It seems you were indeed using Ad hominem then.
That's disappointing, but I understand.
I'm sorry though. Debate forums don't work quite like that. If one is on a debate forum, for the purpose of converting persons to their philosophical or religious ideas, I think they should expect that everyone is not going to be "bird fed".
Perhaps a church may be the better option.

Anyway, I'm sorry to learn this, in this way, as I had hope for you, if anyone else, on the opposing side.
Take care.

Hope for what? That he'ld suddenly forget everything he knows and understands concerning physics, chemistry, genetics, archeology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography,.... and suddenly convert to biblical dogmatism instead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you want to believe what you want. That's it.

My irony meter just exploded again.

I'm running out

 

[Polymath257]

So this experiment was a total joke.

No. What was investigated was the selection pressure on white vs black moths. There has been controversy, but the basic findings support the original study.

Why would you say it was a 'total joke'?

Even *if* it were later shown to be wrong (it wasn't), the basic issue is a valid one. And it is an example of evolution in action: the changes in genetics in a population over time.

As I stated, no individual moth changed color.

Thank you.

Did you think that *anyone* claimed otherwise?

I don't know how you arrived at, "You seem to have the idea that changes in an individual are evolution".

Well, you specifically asked whether octopi evolve every time they change color. That is NOT an example of evolution. it is an example of individual color changes.

That said, the *ability* to change color *is* an evolved trait.

However, I think some persons do have a hard time explaining things clearly. I wouldn't say that is my fault.

It is if you are the one asking questions that are hard to understand, either because they betray a complete lack of understanding or a lack of ability to use the language precisely.

 

[Polymath257]

It did answer the question.
I don't think you are slow and obtuse. So if you didn't get the answer, perhaps there is something else preventing you getting it. Maybe go through the thread from the beginning.

Well, let me put it this way: anything that is consistent with everything that *could* occur is not an explanation of anything.

No.You don't see at all. What?

It seems to follow quite quickly from your cavalier attitude towards the matter.

No. No you do not get it.
I think you want to believe what you want. That's it.

No, I want to believe the truth. I use evidence to determine truths.

You were asked for alternative explanations for the diversity of living things. You failed to give any. ALL you did is note that science doesn't consider supernatural explanations. Do you understand *why* it doesn't?

No, it *isn't* because of an ideological bias against the supernatural. The reason is that the supernatural is untestable: there is no way to get evidence that impinges on the supernatural one way or the other.

 

[nPeace]

No. What was investigated was the selection pressure on white vs black moths. There has been controversy, but the basic findings support the original study.

Why would you say it was a 'total joke'?

You said it was the descendants of black moths that were white.
So the experiment, which was supposed to demonstrate evolution, seemed to be showing directional color change in the moth population. However, there is no indication that descendants were examined for these changes, but rather, it was determined that the peppered moths showed "camouflage efficiency of the different varieties of moths".

Even *if* it were later shown to be wrong (it wasn't), the basic issue is a valid one. And it is an example of evolution in action: the changes in genetics in a population over time.

As I stated, no individual moth changed color.



Did you think that *anyone* claimed otherwise?



Well, you specifically asked whether octopi evolve every time they change color. That is NOT an example of evolution. it is an example of individual color changes.

That said, the *ability* to change color *is* an evolved trait.


It is if you are the one asking questions that are hard to understand, either because they betray a complete lack of understanding or a lack of ability to use the language precisely.

I ask questions for a reason. Asking questions is a line of reasoning. It doesn't mean one does not know anything about what they ask.
Sadly, that method, or approach, seems alien to many on these forums.

I have my thoughts on why that is the case, but I will keep those to myself.

 

[Polymath257]

You said it was the descendants of black moths that were white.

Actually, the change went both ways. When pollution got bad and the trees darkened, the moth populations shifted to be darker. When the pollution was cleaned up a bit, the populations shifted to being lighter again.

So the experiment, which was supposed to demonstrate evolution, seemed to be showing directional color change in the moth population. However, there is no indication that descendants were examined for these changes, but rather, it was determined that the peppered moths showed "camouflage efficiency of the different varieties of moths".
.

Let's see. Same species. Same area. Later time (meaning descendants). And yes, driven by camouflage. I'm not sure what you are saying wasn't done.