Evidence God Is

[nPeace]

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.

Actually. The camouflage right?

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.

Same species. Same area. Two days after (meaning descendants?

Um. In two days... Wow. Moths super egg laying, egg hatching. I need some peppered moth hormones... see if babies can come like that.

)

Of course you are not sure what what I am saying.
Why am I not surprised. I'm saying, evolution - what a joke... and thanks to you guys, it's an even bigger joke.

So basically an experiment was carried out to prove evolution, and all it did was show individual peppered moth's ability to camouflage, or blend in with their surroundings (like iguana and octopus) - which is not evolution.

When the minority of experts protest, their silence quickly follow , and the well supported theory stands well established.
I don't see no rats, but I sure smell one.

 

[metis]

So basically an experiment was carried out to prove evolution, and all it did was show individual peppered moth's ability to camouflage, or blend in with their surroundings (like iguana and octopus) - which is not evolution.

Actually it is as it's a by-product of natural selection. The other two causes of such changes are genetic drift and mutation, with the latter being the "engine" that drives the others.

 

[Polymath257]

So basically an experiment was carried out to prove evolution, and all it did was show individual peppered moth's ability to camouflage, or blend in with their surroundings (like iguana and octopus) - which is not evolution.

No, it is NOT like the iguana and the octopus. In those, the changes happen *in an individual*.

In the moths, the changes are genetic between generations.

 

[nPeace]

Actually it is as it's a by-product of natural selection. The other two causes of such changes are genetic drift and mutation, with the latter being the "engine" that drives the others.

Can you be more specific in what you are saying please? I am not following you. Are you talking about the experiment, or something else, and do you have information to support what you are saying?

 

[nPeace]

No, it is NOT like the iguana and the octopus. In those, the changes happen *in an individual*.

In the moths, the changes are genetic between generations.

Could you please point out where that is, in the experiment?

 

[Milton Platt]

Is god more or less complicated than the things he designed?

 

[nPeace]

Is god more or less complicated than the things he designed?

If you mean complicated, as in difficult to understand, I would say, not as the Bible describes God.
Some people read the Bible, and think God is complicated, but I think once you take the Bible as a whole it gives a sense of awe, and deep respect.
Some here disagree, of course.

If you mean complicated, as in substance, I can tell you, my understanding of that is very limited, and for the greater part, unfathomable. I won't be able to help you much, in that area.

 

[Valjean]

nPeace said: ↑
So basically an experiment was carried out to prove evolution, and all it did was show individual peppered moth's ability to camouflage, or blend in with their surroundings (like iguana and octopus) - which is not evolution.

No. No experiment was carried out. How can you be so obtuse?
Someone simply made the observation that the moth population changed color over time to match the trees they rested on, by means of a simple and obvious cause.

 

[metis]

Can you be more specific in what you are saying please? I am not following you. Are you talking about the experiment, or something else, and do you have information to support what you are saying?

I'm really not sure of what you're looking for besides what I wrote. Any serious source dealing with the ToE will state what I posted as this is very much basic to understanding it. Here: Evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Milton Platt]

If you mean complicated, as in difficult to understand, I would say, not as the Bible describes God.
Some people read the Bible, and think God is complicated, but I think once you take the Bible as a whole it gives a sense of awe, and deep respect.
Some here disagree, of course.

If you mean complicated, as in substance, I can tell you, my understanding of that is very limited, and for the greater part, unfathomable. I won't be able to help you much, in that area.

I mean is the god you propose simple or complex in the same way you say that individual things are complex in design.
Also, provide an example of a simple thing for contrast to complex things. we need to know at what level of design something is complex, otherwise, there is no way to judge the difference. You seem to be judging complexity solely on your limited ability to understand something.
Also, you have a mountain of evidence for T of E and not even a single good hypothesis to work off of for intelligent design. You have basically made an argument from personal incredulity. "I personally can't think of any other way this happened, therefore, god". It's logically unsound.

 

[nPeace]

I'm really not sure of what you're looking for besides what I wrote. Any serious source dealing with the ToE will state what I posted as this is very much basic to understanding it. Here: Evolution - Wikipedia

We are apparently this time, hugely disconnected.

 

[nPeace]

I mean is the god you propose simple or complex in the same way you say that individual things are complex in design.

I don't know how else you want me to answer this, other than the way I did. What exactly are you looking for?

Also, provide an example of a simple thing for contrast to complex things. we need to know at what level of design something is complex, otherwise, there is no way to judge the difference. You seem to be judging complexity solely on your limited ability to understand something.

A main board of a computer is complex.
A computer's housing (case) is simple.
Both are designed objects.

Also, you have a mountain of evidence for T of E and not even a single good hypothesis to work off of for intelligent design. You have basically made an argument from personal incredulity. "I personally can't think of any other way this happened, therefore, god". It's logically unsound.

In your opinion.
However, there are loads of evidence for intelligent design. It is not a case of "God of the gaps". That's an atheist's argument, based not on fact, but argument from personal incredulity.

 

[metis]

However, there are loads of evidence for intelligent design.

Actually there's not, because for there to be "intelligent design", one would have to objectively establish that there was an "intelligence" behind it, and we simply cannot do that on any kind of scientific basis whatsoever-- sorry to say.

Instead, people like you and I actually believe in an "Intelligence", not based on objectively-derived evidence but instead based on our faith that's derived through a different process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually there's not, because for there to be "intelligent design", one would have to objectively establish that there was an "intelligence" behind it, and we simply cannot do that on any kind of scientific basis whatsoever-- sorry to say.

Instead, people like you and I actually believe in an "Intelligence", not based on objectively-derived evidence but instead based on our faith that's derived through a different process.

Biologists when they study life find all sorts of "ID". Unfortunately it tends to be "Incompetent Design" or even in some cases "Insane Design".

 

[nPeace]

Actually there's not, because for there to be "intelligent design", one would have to objectively establish that there was an "intelligence" behind it, and we simply cannot do that on any kind of scientific basis whatsoever-- sorry to say.

Instead, people like you and I actually believe in an "Intelligence", not based on objectively-derived evidence but instead based on our faith that's derived through a different process.

I'm sorry, but please don't include me in your faith.
I have heard religious people actually refer to their faith as blind.
That's not my faith. My faith is based on evidence. It is the faith described in the Bible.
If your faith is not based on evidence, then what is it based on? Is it not blind... meaning, you just believe?

Since you mentioned objective evidence, I want to ask you and @Milton Platt a question. Meet me here for that discussion. I want to keep this thread fixed on its theme.

Is there objective evidence for God? Yes there is. What, you ask?
Let's start with the Bible. If we can establish that the Bible is truly authentic, by careful analysis, then we have objective evidence God is.
The other, is the fact of life, which has already been mentioned in the thread, but I will come back to that after... if necessary.

Let's do something else. Meet me at the specified link, for another question.

Edit
Sorry @metis @Milton Platt I had forgotten the link, if you missed it.

 

[nPeace]

I'm really not sure of what you're looking for besides what I wrote. Any serious source dealing with the ToE will state what I posted as this is very much basic to understanding it. Here: Evolution - Wikipedia

I'm talking about a particular experiment with the peppered moth. You are talking about something else.

 

[calm]

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

That's how Jehovah's Witnesses are. They ask questions whose answers they already know. And why? To teach the other ones, because they think they know all the right answers. And their goal is to convince the other to join their religion.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm sorry, but please don't include me in your faith.
I have heard religious people actually refer to their faith as blind.
That's not my faith. My faith is based on evidence. It is the faith described in the Bible.
If your faith is not based on evidence, then what is it based on? Is it not blind... meaning, you just believe?

Since you mentioned objective evidence, I want to ask you and @Milton Platt a question. Meet me here for that discussion. I want to keep this thread fixed on its theme.

Is there objective evidence for God? Yes there is. What, you ask?
Let's start with the Bible. If we can establish that the Bible is truly authentic, by careful analysis, then we have objective evidence God is.
The other, is the fact of life, which has already been mentioned in the thread, but I will come back to that after... if necessary.

Let's do something else. Meet me at the specified link, for another question.

Edit
Sorry @metis @Milton Platt I had forgotten the link, if you missed it.

I agree that there are things which can be construed as evidence for a god...in fact, there is evidence which can be construed to be evidence for every god ever proposed. Which presents one with a dilemma, doesn't it?
So how do we sort this out? Well, by realizing that different kinds of evidence carry different weight and can be strong or weak. And we also must acknowledge that the more fantastic the claim, the more unassailable the evidence must be.
So if you say to me you have a car in your garage, I would take you literally at your word. If you told me you had two brand new Ferraris in your garage, I might question you.... do you have the financial means to purchase such vehicles? Have you made other such claims which were obviously not true? If you told me you had a Boeing 747 in your garage, I would have to see it to believe it. If you told me you had a god in your garage but it was invisible and there was no objective way to test for it's presence, but you knew it was there because you had a personal experience with it, I would not believe you.

I would add that the Bible is not objective evidence of a god. It is objective evidence that some people who lived very long ago believed there was a god. That is all.

 

[nPeace]

I agree that there are things which can be construed as evidence for a god...in fact, there is evidence which can be construed to be evidence for every god ever proposed. Which presents one with a dilemma, doesn't it?
So how do we sort this out? Well, by realizing that different kinds of evidence carry different weight and can be strong or weak. And we also must acknowledge that the more fantastic the claim, the more unassailable the evidence must be.
So if you say to me you have a car in your garage, I would take you literally at your word. If you told me you had two brand new Ferraris in your garage, I might question you.... do you have the financial means to purchase such vehicles? Have you made other such claims which were obviously not true? If you told me you had a Boeing 747 in your garage, I would have to see it to believe it. If you told me you had a god in your garage but it was invisible and there was no objective way to test for it's presence, but you knew it was there because you had a personal experience with it, I would not believe you.

I would add that the Bible is not objective evidence of a god. It is objective evidence that some people who lived very long ago believed there was a god. That is all.

But I am not talking about what others, or people say. That's testimony. I am talking about actual objective evidence.

So since I don't know of evidence that can be construed to be evidence for every god ever proposed, I really am eager to hear you present that evidence. You don't have to give me all... just one god, and one of the evidences.

Yes, we should question things. I believe in careful analysis.
Did someone say they had god in a garage? I'm certain they can show you it.

Spoiler: Open's the door

I don't believe those gods, are what the Bible refers to as the true and living God. So he can't be found in a garage, or closet, that someone can open a door and show you.
Is that what Atheist are looking for.
That's not a reasonable expectation.

You haven't even examined the evidence that the Bible is objective evidence for God. It is. However, some persons willfully are as described here. (Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

I'm hoping you are different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, but please don't include me in your faith.
I have heard religious people actually refer to their faith as blind.
That's not my faith. My faith is based on evidence. It is the faith described in the Bible.
If your faith is not based on evidence, then what is it based on? Is it not blind... meaning, you just believe?

Since you mentioned objective evidence, I want to ask you and @Milton Platt a question. Meet me here for that discussion. I want to keep this thread fixed on its theme.

Is there objective evidence for God? Yes there is. What, you ask?
Let's start with the Bible. If we can establish that the Bible is truly authentic, by careful analysis, then we have objective evidence God is.
The other, is the fact of life, which has already been mentioned in the thread, but I will come back to that after... if necessary.

Let's do something else. Meet me at the specified link, for another question.

Edit
Sorry @metis @Milton Platt I had forgotten the link, if you missed it.

LOL!! This coming from a man that refuses to even discuss the nature of evidence. Here is a hint, you can't claim that your beliefs are evidence based if you do not understand the nature of evidence.