Evidence God Is

[Sand Dancer]

Not to mention that the male urethra runs through the prostate gland, commonly causing problems with urination when the prostate enlarges with age (and through which men also ejaculate, of course).

Yep. Got someone in my house dealing with that very thing. Not fun. Fun fact: Prostates never stop growing. Something to look forward to for you males out there. Yahweh is lucky he doesn't have a prostate.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First of all, that's the mosquito. My question was about the plasmodium parasite.

Which wouldn’t be an issue if mosquitoes didn’t bite humans. There’s over 5,000 species of mosquitoes, not all were on the Ark.

And the first plasmodium evolved / mutated into 200 species, currently found that is, only 5 of which are harmful. I doubt all 200 were on the Ark, either.
I don’t think you’ve ever wanted to understand my beliefs of the extent evolution has played in speciation … it’s everywhere!
But experimental evidence, like the experiments performed on Drosophila & others, consistently
show that evolutionary mechanisms can’t create novel body plans; only slowly manipulate & process existing data.

Second, does this mean you agree that mutation + natural selection can indeed generate new complex traits and abilities?

“…generate new complex traits and abilities?”
Depends on how complex. With mosquitos? No, those traits already existed, i.e., were there originally. Its proboscis was already designed for ingesting plant sap.

Third, do you have a citation?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02180-0

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which wouldn’t be an issue if mosquitoes didn’t bite humans. There’s over 5,000 species of mosquitoes, not all were on the Ark.

And the first plasmodium evolved / mutated into 200 species, currently found that is, only 5 of which are harmful. I doubt all 200 were on the Ark, either.
I don’t think you’ve ever wanted to understand my beliefs of the extent evolution has played in speciation … it’s everywhere!

So you believe in a sort of evolutionary process on steroids, which makes evolution go faster then what we actually observe by a factor of several 100s times faster?

Do you realize that this silly idea means that for the past 4000 years, there would have to have been some 15-ish speciation events per day?

But experimental evidence, like the experiments performed on Drosophila & others, consistently
show that evolutionary mechanisms can’t create novel body plans; only slowly manipulate & process existing data.

Your mistake is thinking that "novel body plans" appear out of thin air.
In reality, every body part is an adaptation of what came before it. There is no "novel".

Limbs are modified fins. Limbs aren't "novel".
Wings are modified upper limbs. They aren't "novel" either.


So yeas, evolutionary mechanisms only slowly manipulate & process existing data. And by doing so, overtime, they come up with structures that are very very different from what they evolved from. To the point that if one were to compare them, one would call the latter "novel". But that's only because you miss the gap of everything that happened to it in between.

In reality, it was a very gradual change from the first to the latter.

A creature without wings, never gave birth to a creature with wings.

“…generate new complex traits and abilities?”
Depends on how complex. With mosquitos? No, those traits already existed, i.e., were there originally. Its proboscis was already designed for ingesting plant sap.

E.coli at the start of the experiment did NOT have the metabolic ability to grow in citrate. The mutations that made it capable of doing so were actually identified.
The ability to digest nylon also didn't exist before nylon existed.

New traits evolve all the time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How many people you know got UTIs?
Isn't that like getting a disease because of unhygienic practices.
Some people get those diseases. Some don't.
Bad practice always lead to bad consequences.

For example, the mosquito breeds where there is an environment conducive to its increase. Then people in those habitats get sick.
If everyone kept their environment clean, would the mosquito thrive?

Consider that it was after man's disobedience to God, that thorns and thistles would become a problem for them.
So think of it. God never intended for thorns and thistles to florish.
Man was supposed to take care of the earth, and make the whole earth garden-like.
They didn't. They rebelled. Bad consequences followed.

Do you notice the contrast between a place where people allow weeds and wild bush to overrun the land, and a place where people carefully remove weeds and grow flowers, trees, and foods?
Big difference right.

We could give though to these things, and it will help us to see that the design is fine. The inhabitants are the problem... At least the ones not guided by God.

Nothing is wrong with the way our bodies are designed.
Are you not thankful for your immune system; the fact that you can eat, and get rid of waste.

It's sad that people don't show gratitude to the creator, rather than find little things to pick at and complain about, so as to find fault with man's maker. That's pretty sad.

So basically, anything that goes wrong or is bad - no matter what it is - you have decided that it is our own fault.
And everything that goes right or is good - no matter what it is - you have decided it is thanks to god.


So when a baby is born blind, it's his own fault. Or his mother's fault.
Or when a 5-year old gets infected with a parasite that eats his eyes or his brains from the inside out, it's his own fault. Because he's a "sinner". He deserves it.

Or ultimately it's the fault of a couple humans that were convinced by some talking snake to take a bite from a magical apple.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

 

[Sand Dancer]

God to Abraham: I designed the penis so perfectly that I need y'all to start cutting part of it off.

So basically, anything that goes wrong or is bad - no matter what it is - you have decided that it is our own fault.
And everything that goes right or is good - no matter what it is - you have decided it is thanks to god.


So when a baby is born blind, it's his own fault. Or his mother's fault.
Or when a 5-year old gets infected with a parasite that eats his eyes or his brains from the inside out, it's his own fault. Because he's a "sinner". He deserves it.

Or ultimately it's the fault of a couple humans that were convinced by some talking snake to take a bite from a magical apple.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

People wouldn't be so apt to believe this stuff if we didn't have fear instilled in us about going to hell. Also, since few other religions proselytize, we don't get to know the other religious choices out there. These religions prey on the insecure, weak and suffering. So wrong.

 

[Valjean]

But experimental evidence, like the experiments performed on Drosophila & others, consistently
show that evolutionary mechanisms can’t create novel body plans; only slowly manipulate & process existing data.

What experiments are these? Links, please.
Why can't small changes accumulate into big changes? How do these small changes know when to stop, so as not to become big changes?

We know there exist millions of different body plans, some ancient, others new. Where did they come from? What mechanisms account for them, if not those outlined by the ToE? Was magic poofing involved? Did novel forms just pop into existence, de novo? If so, why haven't these sudden appearances ever been observed?

By data, I'm assuming you mean genetic data.
First, genetic "data" gets created or deleted all the time. Mutations occur, sexual mixture occurs. Whole chromosomes may be added or deleted, in a single reproductive event.

Second, a small tweak; a single base-pair substitution, may have no effect, a minor effect or a huge effect. It may even be lethal. It doesn't take a lot of "new data" to completely change anatomy or physiology; to create a whole new body plan.

With billions of organisms constantly reproducing, and the resulting variation constantly being sorted by the known mechanisms of evolution, why would novel forms not be expected to occur on a regular basis?

 

[Jose Fly]

Which wouldn’t be an issue if mosquitoes didn’t bite humans. There’s over 5,000 species of mosquitoes, not all were on the Ark.

And the first plasmodium evolved / mutated into 200 species, currently found that is, only 5 of which are harmful. I doubt all 200 were on the Ark, either.
I don’t think you’ve ever wanted to understand my beliefs of the extent evolution has played in speciation … it’s everywhere!
But experimental evidence, like the experiments performed on Drosophila & others, consistently
show that evolutionary mechanisms can’t create novel body plans; only slowly manipulate & process existing data.

I can't tell if you're not able to grasp the point here, or if you're just dodging it.

Again, the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria utilizes a very complex life history to do so. If evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate such complexity, as you suggest, then how did that complexity arise?

“…generate new complex traits and abilities?”
Depends on how complex. With mosquitos? No, those traits already existed, i.e., were there originally. Its proboscis was already designed for ingesting plant sap.
How mosquitoes evolved to crave human blood

First of all, thanks for the link.

Second, again we're talking about the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria and how its complex life cycle came to be. Please try and stay on topic.

 

[nPeace]

Excuse me, I do not have bad hygiene. Many people, mostly women, suffer with these over and over. Stop blaming us. Why did Yahweh want men to cut off part of their penis? What was wrong with how it was designed?

How do you know what you don't have? Hasn't man been messing up the planet and people's lives, as far back as we know? I heard one scientist blame mankind for the deadly hurricanes, due to their years of destructive activities..

A lot about us is bad. It's just that some of us mistakenly think we are good.
Even the mosquitoes are messed up.

Now, does that help any, with understanding why God wanted men - the ones he was going to 'dwell among' to cut off part of their penis?

 

[nPeace]

People wouldn't be so apt to believe this stuff if we didn't have fear instilled in us about going to hell. Also, since few other religions proselytize, we don't get to know the other religious choices out there. These religions prey on the insecure, weak and suffering. So wrong.

It's understandable that religion - false religion, that is - has contributed to the ignorance of people, and their laziness to investigate the evidence, so easily available to them.
Certainly, as is clear to you, we should acknowledge false religions role in this. Not all religion does this.
In fact, to claim that only religious people are weak, is clearly not a reasonable view, since that would mean that people who gave up great wealth, and high positions and fame must by necessity be weak.
However, that is to have a highly mistaken opinion.

 

[Sand Dancer]

How do you know what you don't have? Hasn't man been messing up the planet and people's lives, as far back as we know? I heard one scientist blame mankind for the deadly hurricanes, due to their years of destructive activities..

A lot about us is bad. It's just that some of us mistakenly think we are good.
Even the mosquitoes are messed up.

Now, does that help any, with understanding why God wanted men - the ones he was going to 'dwell among' to cut off part of their penis?

Because I do all of the suggestions from doctors. We are just trying to get by in a healthy manner, at least I am. Thanks for your effort though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.

Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.

What general principle is their inferences based on?

 

[nPeace]

What general principle is their inferences based on?

Perhaps you can clarify, or better yet, tell me what you are getting at, or make your point.
I will respond to it, since I think you are saying there is zero evidence for God.
So, go ahead.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps you can clarify, or better yet, tell me what you are getting at, or make your point.
I will respond to it, since I think you are saying there is zero evidence for God.
So, go ahead.

No, there is no evidence for God for at least one understanding of evidence. For another understanding of evidence there is evidence for God.
You and I just use different understandings. Now what?

 

[nPeace]

Because I do all of the suggestions from doctors. We are just trying to get by in a healthy manner, at least I am. Thanks for your effort though.

I'm sorry. I don't think I was alerted to your post, so I didn't see it.
You're welcomed.

 

[nPeace]

No, there is no evidence for God for at least one understanding of evidence. For another understanding of evidence there is evidence for God.
You and I just use different understandings. Now what?

Good. There is evidence for God.
Now, that we can agree. Let's just talk about something else, on another occasion, and on another thread. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good. There is evidence for God.
Now, that we can agree. Let's just talk about something else, on another occasion, and on another thread. Thanks.

We don't agree. You have evidence for God. I don't. I have neither evidence for or against God. I am an agnostic.

 

[nPeace]

We don't agree. You have evidence for God. I don't. I have neither evidence for or against God. I am an agnostic.

I thought you said there is evidence for God.
For another understanding of evidence there is evidence for God.
Did you mean something else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I thought you said there is evidence for God.
For another understanding of evidence there is evidence for God.
Did you mean something else?

Can't you read? I wrote there are different kinds of understanding of evidence and yours is not the only one.

 

[nPeace]

Can't you read? I wrote there are different kinds of understanding of evidence and yours is not the only one.

I can read.
Please state the different understands of evidence you are referring to.