Evidence

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How could you possibly know that?

Because even quantum events must occur in a universe. It is almost as if people think that quantum events are supernatural themselves. No; they are still physical events that are bound by natural law and must exist in a universe.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's hard to tell sometimes whether you are really as confused as your posts suggest, or whether you're just very bad at expressing yourself.

Wait a minute...people are on here arguing against 2+2=4...and whether something can spring in to existence from nothing....yet you bypass all of the absurdities that are spewing from those assertions and come at me when all I did was ask a question?? Laughable.

What we have above suggests you believe Copernicus had claimed there were once humans with brains and no eyes. Do you honestly think that's what he said?

Copernicus? Oh yeah, he is the one that believes it may be possible for something to come from a state of nothing. Anyways, look.....I asked a very simple question. I asked that since the human eye needs the brain to function properly, which came first, the human or the brain? That is a very simple question. Evolutionists cannot answer questions like this. When they do make the attempt to answer it, what we get is a whole lot of voo doo science. I will ask you the same questions I asked him. What came first; the stomach or the appetite? What came first; the blood or the veins? What came first; the bone or the skin? What came first; the penis or the testicles? What came first; the breast or the milk? What came first; the disease, or the immune system?

If the disease came before the immune system, that would mean that the disease had been invading organisms and killing them off before the immune system got here. And somehow, the organism "knew" that "hey, we are getting our behinds kicked!!! We need something to help us fight against these invading bacterium's".....and presto!!! we have an immune system.

If the immune system came first, it had to know "hey, we may be going to war, or we may not be going to war, so we are going to put these troops in place for just in case"

If you want to believe that kind of stuff, go right ahead. But I find it completely absurd for a mindless and blind process to be able to put these systems in place with so organized and orderly specifications.

Oh, and I know what you are going to say....."Thats not how evolution works!!! You just don't understand evolution!!! You need to take a beginners course on biology!!!" Typical evolutionists stuff. I DO understand evolution, and thats not why I am not putting my chips on the table for it.

When he patiently put you right on this you responded with another inanity:
You seem impervious to the fact that the earliest humans inherited the features (including eyes and brains) of their immediate predecessors, which inherited the features of their immediate predecessors, and so on all the way back to the earliest vertebrates and beyond.

First of all, all I asked was which one came first. But if you want to go ahead and tell me what your evolution religion states, go right ahead.


You said "the earliest humans inherited the features of their immediate predecessors, and so on all the way back to the earliest vertebrates and beyond" See, right there!!! Right there!!! With that one statement you just left science science and landed in the realm of religion. It happened so fast you didn't even know it. It was a blur. There is NO EVIDENCE that humans had any predecessors to inherit features from. That is your presupposed interpretation. You start with your presupposition, and you will use that to interpret all evidence. Typical evolutionists stuff right there.

As to which came first, it is worth noting that a brain has numerous useful functions independent of eyes, whilst eyes (in the true, image-forming sense) are of little or no use without a CNS to process the information they provide.
Most palaeontologists - people, that is, who actually know things about the subject, and aren't just waving placards proclaiming their ignorance - would disagree with you. However, for argument's sake let's pretend for a moment that Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ambulocetus and the rest really do lack the features necessary to make them transitional fossils, which you say "we haven't found yet". What features, then, would some future find have to possess to convince you that it was transitional?

I don't think we will ever find transitional fossils. Even if we do, as I said before....I would still believe that there had to be a Intelligent Designer behind the ordeal. I don't believe that mindless and blind processes create specified complexity. Just like I don't believe a tornado through a junkyard will miraculously create a Boeing 787, I just cant find myself to believe the evolutionary process could create the human body, or any other body.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes: "Throughout the experiment, altogether 10,500 of foxes were used as parents. In all, about 50,000 offspring were obtained and tested for their amenability to domestication. The result of this directional selection is impressive: a unique domestic fox with behavior very similar to another species, the domestic dog, has been developed through methodically applied selection."

"On the origin of a domesticated species: identifying the parent population of Russian silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes)." Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 103(1), 168-175.

The "origins" of this species is different than explaining the origins of the species we know of as the dog (Canis familiaris) in terms of another species, the grey wolf (Canis lupus), because while one took place over 10,000 years ago, we watched as foxes over a few generations resulted in this "unique" species, a "fox" that doesn't looks, acts, and thinks more like a dog than a wolf.

In other words, we watched while litter after litter of little fox babies went from this:

into this:

Explained all in terms of evolution:
Trut, L., Oskina, I., & Kharlamova, A. (2009). Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. Bioessays, 31(3), 349-360.

And the picture just gives you an idea of phenotypic morphology, which is actually less of an indication of difference than the fact that these "domestic foxes" act more like dogs than any kind of fox.






What you know is that there is no instance you are aware of such that the above could be false, because you get there by defining things like "dogs", "wolves", and "foxes" which are as similar as humans and chimps to be the same animal. So when a "fox" not only looks different than the species it's ancestors (and not tens of thousands of years ago, but in the 20th century), but behaves more like a separate species. In fact, it doesn't just randomly look different than other foxes, it developed dog-like physical characteristics not seen in any other fox.

Aw man, it happens time and time again. I ask someone to give me an example of macroevolution, and they give an example of microevolution. I didn't even have to read anything you said, Legion. Based on the pictures alone, all I see are dogs. My original point was DOGS PRODUCE DOGS. I don't care what kind of species of dog they produce, what kind of variety they produce.....the end result will be a DOG. That was my only point. They may be big dogs, little dogs, big dogs, small dogs, hairy dogs, ugly dogs, cute dogs....but what is the common denominator, DOGS.

That "somehow" is not a mystery. We are talking about the history of research on evolution, not the process itself. When you refer to the ways in which the fossil record became part of the scientific discussion of evolution as happening "somehow", it indicates you are refuting a theory you are ignorant of.

Fossil record lol. When you find a fossil and determine anything other than "this once living creature has now passed on".......then you are obviously reading your presupposition in to the evidence. There is just no reason to conclude "this once living creature is the evolutionary predecessor of X". There is just no reason. But like I said before, that presupposition will lead to a lot of unjustified conclusions, as is evident.

If I wished to show that no biological theories of evolutionary processes could be accurate, I'd have to understand what those theories were. Can you tell me why topology was a necessary step in analysis and how the Lebesgue integral is an improvement? No. Why? Because you do not understand either toplogy or theories of integration (not to mention how they relate). And there's nothing wrong with that. We are all ignorant of infinitely more than that which we know of. However, if you tried to demonstrate that analysis (classical mathematical discipline) was superior not just before measure theory, but back infinitesimals were used and we had no formal definitions for them (i.e., before we had the formal definition of limits we do now and a later but rigorous definition infinitesimals), you'd run into a lot of problems. Because I seriously doubt that you are aware of what any of this means and therefore can't really show anything about it.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

That has not prevented you from doing this with logic, physics, biology, and just about everything else. You talk about things you really don't understand at a very basic level, and then claim you follow the evidence.

Hmm, lets break down in a nut shell what I've been claiming...

1. The dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears: There is nothing contrary to the claim here. This is all we've observed. To go any further than this is completely unjustified.

2. I've said that in order to be considered a "necessary truth", this truth must be true in all possible worlds...and all possible necessary truths must exist in reality. Go to any philosopher and ask "Is it possible for a necessary truth to be untrue in a possible world"....I will guarantee he/she will say "No, because if it is untrue in at least one possible world, it was never a necessary truth".

3. I said the universe had a beginning, which is a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any textbook on cosmology.

So to wrap it up....I said that an animal has never been seen producing a different kind of animal....necessary truths exist in all possible worlds...and the universe had a beginning. Three facts.....so nothing that I've said is untrue. But hey, if I am so much less than a beginner.....then why are you discussing this stuff with me?

Yes, but that's mainly because I don't want to give you a derivation which allows you to go look up other things you don't understand but have no problem claiming are "'obvious" and that anything to the contrary is "absurd". Also, I'm not the one claiming my understanding of possible worlds semantics, modal logic, and proof is sufficiently advanced to claim I can prove god exists.

I don't care much for rhetoric. All I know is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes....all possible necessary truths exist in all possible worlds......and the universe began to exist.

How would you know? You told a cosmologists she was wrong about cosmology. Did you know that?

I told who what?

You neither do research like an average person nor discuss it like an average person. I happen to know someone whose field I know a bit about but who recently spent a long time here and in Italy studying the musical production, styles, etc, produced by a particular group of nuns a few centuries ago. I wouldn't go up to her and use terms I barely understand from what I know of musicology and gender studies to argue she's wrong. Why? Because I'd have no idea what I'm talking about. I'd ask for information from her, rather argue.

I'd like to think that the average person doesn't "do research" by looking for the evidence of what they believe to begin with, not really understanding most of it, and ignoring any contradicting research even when they are spoon-fed it.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, birds produce birds. Necessary truths exist in all possible worlds....2+2=4....something cant come from nothing....and the universe began to exist. Not interested in rhetoric.

Because you are making very bold claims using technical terms with technical meanings and a history going back over 2,000 years, but you don't really understand what you are saying. The idea that there is no possible world in which that mathematical statement is true doesn't enter into your head because things like "nominalism", while fundamentally related to things you are trying to argue, are also things you don't have any knowledge of.

So, if me, you, john, and cope exist as the only inhabitants in all possible worlds, what would be the total sum of me, you, john, and cop in all possible worlds????


No point in responding to the rest. After all, I am so much less than a beginner that im suprised we even made it this far

 

[Copernicus]

So you are saying that they appeared simultaneously?

No. Do you at least understand that word? Let me repeat it. No. I answered your question several times, but it seems not to have made it through your defensive shields.

Whether evolution is a threat to my religious beliefs is irrelevant. If it is true, then it is true. I've never seen any observational evidence supporting it and science is SUPPOSED to be based on observational evidence and experiments. No one has ever observed macroevolution, so it doesn't even qualify as a science based on the mere definition of science.

You have oversimplified the scientific process. There is a mountain of evidence from different sources of information--not just simple observation (although that kind of evidence has already been pointed out to you) of the process, but the fossil record, genetics, patterns of species distribution, etc. I think you've demonstrated an astounding resistance to being educated on this subject at this point in time, but you are not unique in that respect. Life is long, and hopefully you will revisit the subject with a more open mind as you continue to ponder its mysteries.

And it should be noted that even if evolution was proven, I would still believe that an Intelligent Designer was the mastermind behind it, for reasons I've already mentioned.

That's your call, not mine. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are religious and believe that God has intervened to create us. There is no way to prove such a belief wrong, but it takes a lot of work to maintain it.

Show me one case of macroevolution that has been observed.

At this point, I'll leave it to you to do your own homework. I've pointed you to Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. I'm pretty sure that you won't bother to read it or any similar work that might challenge your beliefs, but anyone can change, including me. If you are really interested in learning about science, go for other sources than internet debates or creationist sources that merely confirm your biases.

Causation only entails temporality if the causal agent was in time. It was only at the moment of creation did God "become" temporal. If God was sitting perfectly still for all eternity there is no way he could be in a temporal state.

No, temporality is part of the meaning of causation. It is always a relationship between two events. Two events are causally related only if one (antecedent) precedes or is simultaneous with the other (consequent), and the consequent would not occur if the antecedent did not occur.

If the universe began to exist then not even the quantum foam existed.

I gave you the Wikipedia link to quantum foam. Read it or not. Your choice.

Ok, but notice it is either possible or it isn't possible. If it is possible then it must exist. You have to show that it isn't possible. If it is possible, then the conclusion follows logically whether we like it or not. The proposition "God exists necessarily in all possible worlds" is either true or it isn't true. If it is even POSSIBLE for something to exist necessarily, then it follows that it must exist ACTUALLY.

I agree that something necessarily exists, for we exist. The question that you haven't answered is whether God exists. You don't get God for free by playing games with word definitions.

Well we agree that the mind and brain are two distinctive things. So the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind. So if something made up of matter cannot explain it, then what else are you left with.

A heat source and boiling water are two different things, yet one can be used to explain the other. Brain activity is what causes thought. That's why they invented motorcycle helmets.

Well, thanks for the discussion, but the discussion clearly is not advancing. I'll let you have the last word, but I'm going to move on to other things.

 

[cottage]

Not at all. Before you even get to the point of “proof”, you define what “God” is. Based on Plantiga’s version, God is defined as a maximally great being. Then he lists certain attributes that a maximally great being would have. At this point, either it is possible for such a being to exist, or it isn’t possible for such a being to exist. If there are no internal incoherencies based on what God is defined as, then it follows that it is possible for a MGB to exist. If it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then it logically follows that it must be necessarily true, due to the law of excluded middle. Either something is A or B, if not B then A, or if not A then B. There are no in-betweens.

The ontological argument’s conclusion is the logical consequent deductively derived from the premises, but the premises and the conclusion itself may be extremely doubtful. The question begging form of the argument assumes there is a further reality beyond that to which the understanding applies, and in my view that is to argue fallaciously for a metaphysical certainty. My first objection takes the form that if ‘God exists’ is true it seems reasonable to say his existence must be factually necessary as well as logically necessary, and yet there is no demonstration in the former case. The logical structure of the argument wants to take us outside and beyond the internal truth implied by the analytical proposition, but as Kant said, no existential proposition follows from the laws of logic alone. It is necessarily true for example that a triangle can never have more or fewer than three angles, but there need be no triangles anywhere in existence. And of course it cannot be said that, unlike the triangle, which need not exist, God’s is a Necessary Being, since that is what the argument is supposed to prove!

My second objection begins from the same premise that Leibniz takes as his first principle, that of logical possibility. It is logically possible that there are no worlds other than this, the actual world, in which case there is nothing external to it to be contradicted, and since everything in the actual world can be conceived as non-existent, there is, therefore, nothing external or internal that implies a contradiction; and from which it follows that there is no Maximally Greatest Being. For if it is possible that no being exists of necessity then it demonstrably true that no being exists of necessity.

Now is held by some philosophers that if it is possible that a thing is necessary then a fortiori it is necessary. Plantinga thought the ontological argument could be defended through the notion of possible worlds, where in a possible world there exists a being with maximal greatness, from which it would follow that in every possible world there is such a being necessarily (by definition the being only has maximal greatness if it exists in every world). And that brings me to my third objection, which is that is that God is not a possible being. The actual world is also a possible world, but if God is the Absolutely Necessary Being then he is pure actuality, for unlike this possible world, which is contingent and has potential for being, the Necessary Being has potential for doing but not for being. Self-evidently a thing cannot be both possible and necessary; if it were otherwise the Necessary Being might not exist, which is an outright contradiction.

For my fourth objection I must mention Locke, who said there is no innate idea of God, which would seem to be correct. Even theist philosopher Descartes showed with his Cogito ergo sum that it is not possible to conceive of anything as being always in existence. And indeed, Hume said: ‘it will always be possible for us at any time to conceive the non-existence of what we formally conceived to exist; and nor can the mind lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain in always in being in the same manner that we lie under the necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four.’ In sum, there is no entailment from ‘God has necessary existence’ to ‘Necessarily God exists.’

 

[sonofdad]

Because even quantum events must occur in a universe. It is almost as if people think that quantum events are supernatural themselves. No; they are still physical events that are bound by natural law and must exist in a universe.

Why are you certain that the laws of quantum physics didn't exist before this particular universe?

 

[McBell]

Me stating that 2+2 will always equal 4 is nonsense? Wow. If irrationality is the price of not believing in God I will gladly leave you to it.

Since you are still not interested in honest discussion, I shall leave you to further masturbate your beliefs.

 

[johnhanks]

Anyways, look.....I asked a very simple question.

It was, indeed, a simple question. Just like "What was Julius Caesar's role in the American Civil War?" is a simple question. Simple questions don't always make sense, nor do simple questioners necessarily have any idea what they're talking about.

I asked that since the human eye needs the brain to function properly, which came first, the human or the brain? That is a very simple question. Evolutionists cannot answer questions like this. When they do make the attempt to answer it, what we get is a whole lot of voo doo science.

It would appear that to you all science is voodoo science.

Oh, and I know what you are going to say....."Thats not how evolution works!!! You just don't understand evolution!!! You need to take a beginners course on biology!!!" Typical evolutionists stuff. I DO understand evolution, and thats not why I am not putting my chips on the table for it.

CotW, nothing you have posted suggests even the faintest understanding of evolution or indeed of biology in general: just the opposite. The little rant I have quoted here smacks of nothing so much as a small child throwing a tantrum because he's been told he's written his b's and d's backwards: "I DO SO know how to write!!! Stop telling me I need to learn my letters!!"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Based on the pictures alone, all I see are dogs.

Ok, let's say they're all just dogs. Wolves, foxes, dogs, etc., are all "dogs". Humans are homo sapiens. The reason there are two parts is because sapiens tells us the species while homo tells us the genus. There are no other living members in this genus. However, those biologists with their voodoo have determined that the "family" (the biological class "family") is Hominidae. This is mainly because of the genotypic and phenotypic characteristics we observe in both humans and in chimps, gorillas, etc.

For a moment, let's focus only on the ways we can classify species and assume evolution doesn't exist. For example, we can still look at genetic traits, markers, variation, etc., along with various phenotypes. Basically, we can compare how "close" two animals are (how much they look alike, act alike, and possess similar particular character/personality traits), often with mathematical precision. There was a time when all we could do was notice that dogs look very different from one another, but many look a lot like wolves.

That is no longer the case. The same mathematical techniques that are used in things like gaming, or for 3D models, are used in biology. We can actually mathematically compare morphological characteristics (shapes, in this case the shapes of animals). So while all you see is dogs, your visual system is awful at determining how similar certain shapes or figures are in many ways. Statistical shape analysis can tell us a lot more about how different animals look relative to others than your eyes can.

However, that's nothing compared to genetic analyses. Here we have a host of mathematical techniques to compare a huge number of factors that the human mind cannot.

Finally, we have behavior. For example, certain animals hunt in packs. They have display particular types of behavior that are necessary to coordinate collective actions, regulate network dynamics, etc.

Basically, we don't need evolution to tell us a great deal about how similar different animals are compared to your "all I see is dogs".

And what we find is that this category of "dogs" has animals with less in common than you do with a chimpanzee.

In other words, when "all you see is dogs" is your explanation for why an animal's offspring changes drastically while we watch until it is basically as similar to a "dog" as you are to a gorilla, what you've done is say "humans didn't evolve from primates because we're all monkeys". You deny that the changes we observe can take place in the way that we observe because of evolution, which means that all these observed changes have to be explained some other way. The only other way is to say that what are usually classified as distinct species are in fact the same, and the only way to do that is to make the definition of species so broad that we don't have humans, chimps, gorillas, etc., because all we have are monkeys.

My original point was DOGS PRODUCE DOGS. I don't care what kind of species of dog they produce, what kind of variety they produce.....the end result will be a DOG.

How do you define a "dog"? We're not just dealing with separate species, because you've combined an entire "family" class into one thing called "dogs". If foxes, wolves, and dogs are all dogs, then why isn't a leopard? Or a wolverine?

That was my only point. They may be big dogs, little dogs, big dogs, small dogs, hairy dogs, ugly dogs, cute dogs....but what is the common denominator, DOGS.

And humans are just monkeys.

Fossil record lol. When you find a fossil and determine anything other than "this once living creature has now passed on".......then you are obviously reading your presupposition in to the evidence.

You do that every time you eat, drink, walk, etc. You are assuming that you are not seeing things that aren't there. You don't walk in front of a car not because you've tested what happens when you're hit by one. If you have ever received any medical treatment, you did so based solely on presuppositions (about medicine, medical expertise, and that whatever symptoms you might have indicate something is wrong that can be addressed through medicine.

There is just no reason to conclude "this once living creature is the evolutionary predecessor of X".

How do you know?

There is just no reason. But like I said before, that presupposition will lead to a lot of unjustified conclusions, as is evident.

Do you know what probability means? Or inference? Do you know how much of what you call "presupposition" is why are alive, why you have access to medicine, computers, cell-phones, etc.? No, you don't. You don't because you do not understand how research works or what went into developing theories which made possible so many of the things you use or rely on. But because you don't care about the numerous ways in which presuppositions were involved developing so many fundamental things around you, and you do care about the same use when it comes to evolution, suddenly research, theories, mathematics, and lots of other things you don't know or don't understand or couldn't understand (without more background in mathematics, biology, chemistry, etc.) are based on presuppositions.

That's following the evidence?




Hmm, lets break down in a nut shell what I've been claiming...

1. The dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears: There is nothing contrary to the claim here. This is all we've observed. To go any further than this is completely unjustified.

What you have observed is variations among animals that you have grouped in to classes based on...? What makes a wolf and a fox a dog but not a cat?

Your counter to evolution is simply to simply says "this is a dog" no matter how it looks and behaves, but that it isn't a cat, or a weasel, or any number of other things that look more like one of two things you are calling "dogs".

I've said that in order to be considered a "necessary truth", this truth must be true in all possible worlds

Yes, but as you don't really know what possible worlds mean and how they relate to necessary truths, all you can do when challenged is repeat the same dogmatic things you read somewhere.

3. I said the universe had a beginning, which is a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any textbook on cosmology.

Which textbook have you ever read on cosmology?

But hey, if I am so much less than a beginner.....then why are you discussing this stuff with me?

Because willful blindness and dogmatic insistence that one is 'following the evidence" when one is actually refusing to even look at the evidence bothers me on a fundamental level. It is one thing to acknowledge that we have to have certain amounts of faith in various ways, and that these differ among people. It is another to find a bunch of arguments you don't really understand and act as if they are obviously correct (so much that it is absurd to think otherwise). I don't really care for intellectual dishonesty.

And I don't really enjoy when people feel free to stand on the shoulders of giants just to close their eyes.

I told who what?

You don't know. I know, because I was participating in that thread and I know what the field of the individual you responded to concerns, but you do not. Which was my point.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, birds produce birds. Necessary truths exist in all possible worlds....2+2=4....something cant come from nothing....and the universe began to exist. Not interested in rhetoric.

You are interested in dogma. Which is fine. Just stop pretending it is anything other than dogma. To pretend that you can claim things about necessary truths and possible worlds without understanding classical logic is not reason, it is not evidence, it is dogma.

So, if me, you, john, and cope exist as the only inhabitants in all possible worlds, what would be the total sum of me, you, john, and cop in all possible worlds????

Sure, why not? I have no idea what you it is you understand things like possible worlds and necessary truths to be, because they aren't what logicians use these terms to mean. If you want your private possible world semantics to mean the above is true, ok.

 

[johnhanks]

I don't think we will ever find transitional fossils. Even if we do...

You complain about others not answering your "simple questions". I asked you a simple question: since palaeontologists have filled whole museums with what they regard as transitional fossils, and you in your superior wisdom have declared that they are no such thing, what features would "real" transitional fossils show that Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus etc. lack?

... I would still believe that there had to be a Intelligent Designer behind the ordeal*. I don't believe that mindless and blind processes create specified complexity. Just like I don't believe a tornado through a junkyard will miraculously create a Boeing 787, I just cant find myself to believe the evolutionary process could create the human body, or any other body.

And there, after all your pseudo-scientific huffing and puffing, we come to your real baseline position: it's the good old argument from incredulity. If only you'd said that upfront, we could all have saved our keyboards a lot of wear.

* Is "ordeal" a typo for "order"? Is that revealing?

 

[cottage]

Aw man, it happens time and time again. I ask someone to give me an example of macroevolution, and they give an example of microevolution.

Yes, and that will always be the case. If the TOE claims that the process occurred over mllions of years, which it does, then it must be obvious that no examples of macroevolution can be given. Evolution is a theory, and it makes inferences from the present to the past on instances found in experience, and clearly those inferences from experience can only be made from what we can observe now or what is available in living memory.

Despite its title, Darwin's Origin of Species doesn't actually address the matter of origin, that is to say it doesn’t raise the question of where life began; and the process cannot be traced with forensic certainty from one point to another, never mind to a supposed beginning of existence. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is never going to be blown out of the water because although we are unable to observe mutations that happen over millions of years we see them all the time on a lesser scale in the case of animal breeding and the cross fertilisation of plant material. So if the principle is established that living things and the environment can change over relatively very brief periods of time, then the argument that species themselves can evolve even more extensively, over millennia, would seem to be a valid argument underpinned by the knowledge that we already have, which is that all creatures and living things on this planet of ours are genetically related.

Creationism on the other hand is almost entirely held a matter of faith, or belief in a Biblical account. And unlike those who accept that the scientific study of natural selection is an ongoing process subject to amendment and alteration, creationists do not allow any argument to count against their rigidly held faith-based doctrine, and instead of making their case they prefer to debate evolution, looking for flaws by which they presume to find for creationism by default.

We must keep in mind that there is not even the slightest factual evidence for supernatural beings, whereas change and mutation are undeniable features of the natural world, and natural selection has a certain logic in the notion that where particular creatures are endowed with, or develop, specific attributes relative to their environment their chance of survival is increased along with the ability to pass on their genes. And of course it follows that creatures without those necessary attributes must eventually become extinct. It is survival of the fittest, harsh but true. And we are all victims or beneficiaries of our genes, which isn’t a matter for dispute. In the plant world certain shrubs or trees are susceptible to disease, but plant finders discover cultivars of the same species, which look very different but share the same genus, and are more hardy or immune to disease and pathogens. And the crossbreeding of animals has already been mentioned here. If such everyday occurrences show how plants and animals can evolve, with or without our contrivance, then the argument for natural selection seems sound. Of course we cannot pretend to prescribe exactly how this process would develop over millions of years, but it is safe to say we do know that change and mutation occurred. Evolution is a very credible theory.

 

[McBell]

Aw man, it happens time and time again. I ask someone to give me an example of macroevolution, and they give an example of microevolution.

That is because you completely ignore the Mule.
You are asking for an example of macroevolution, yet are waiting for something out of a Pokemon game.

While we are on the topic of your blatant dishonesty...
Are you ever going to define "kind" in a manner that is meaningful outside your small religious box?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No. Do you at least understand that word? Let me repeat it. No. I answered your question several times, but it seems not to have made it through your defensive shields.

You said you answered my questions several times, yet that was the first time I asked whether or not it happened simultaneously.

You have oversimplified the scientific process. There is a mountain of evidence from different sources of information--not just simple observation (although that kind of evidence has already been pointed out to you) of the process, but the fossil record, genetics, patterns of species distribution, etc. I think you've demonstrated an astounding resistance to being educated on this subject at this point in time, but you are not unique in that respect. Life is long, and hopefully you will revisit the subject with a more open mind as you continue to ponder its mysteries.

Typical evolutionists response. They always accuse you of not being educated in this regard. All I know is this; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, ants produce ants. Anything other than this is mere speculation...a religion, actually.

That's your call, not mine. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are religious and believe that God has intervened to create us. There is no way to prove such a belief wrong, but it takes a lot of work to maintain it.

Well, I disagree with them too. But I respect the fact that they believe that if evolution did occur, it had to be guided with the hand of an Intelligent Designer. They don't believe in this voo doo science that non-theistic evolutionists believe in.

At this point, I'll leave it to you to do your own homework. I've pointed you to Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

Look, you keep posting things. I can do the same thing. There are many links I can post that will say something contrary to what you are posting. Show me one piece of evidence concerning macroevolution, that has actually been OBSERVED.

I'm pretty sure that you won't bother to read it or any similar work that might challenge your beliefs, but anyone can change, including me. If you are really interested in learning about science, go for other sources than internet debates or creationist sources that merely confirm your biases.

Its not about who says what...it is about interpretation of the evidence. This is quite evident in you people talking about the "fossil record". You see, we both see the same evidence....a fossil in the dirt....only you are concluding that some of these fossils are evolutionary predesssors of living things today. I say that the fossil is just the remains of a living being that died long ago. We are making the same observation. We just have different intepretations of the observation. To say that any living thing of the past is the common ancestor of any living today is unwarranted.

No, temporality is part of the meaning of causation. It is always a relationship between two events. Two events are causally related only if one (antecedent) precedes or is simultaneous with the other (consequent), and the consequent would not occur if the antecedent did not occur.

And who is stating that there was two events prior to the beginning of the universe? Not me. If God was sitting perfectly still for all eternity and never moved an inch, then what was the first event? What was the second event? There was NEITHER of such an event. That is why the argument is God was timeless before creation and temporal after creation.

I gave you the Wikipedia link to quantum foam. Read it or not. Your choice.

And I told you that quantum events occur within the universe. They do not transcend the universe. Like I said before, some of you people make it seem as if quantum phenomenon are supernatural or something....they do not transcend the physical world and in fact are described by natural law.

I agree that something necessarily exists, for we exist. The question that you haven't answered is whether God exists. You don't get God for free by playing games with word definitions.

With all due respect buddy, if you think that we necessarily exist then you obviously dont know the nature of necessity. How about doing research on that instead of riding the Dawkins bandwagon

A heat source and boiling water are two different things, yet one can be used to explain the other. Brain activity is what causes thought. That's why they invented motorcycle helmets.

The brain is the mechanism that the mind uses to interact in a physical body. God wanted to place man in a physical realm. The mind is not physical, so God created a physical mechanism for the mind to correlate with the physical body. Your mind is the actual "you", not the brain

Well, thanks for the discussion, but the discussion clearly is not advancing. I'll let you have the last word, but I'm going to move on to other things.

You've done well, my son lol

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why are you certain that the laws of quantum physics didn't exist before this particular universe?

I'm not saying this universe in particular, I'm saying the universe in general. Quantum physics exist in some physical universe, whether this one or otherwise.

 

[adi2d]

Call of the wild

You stated maybe God was sitting perfectly still for eternity before He made the universe. I have one question

What was he sitting on?

 

[johnhanks]

You [Call_of_the_Wild] complain about others not answering your "simple questions". I asked you a simple question: since palaeontologists have filled whole museums with what they regard as transitional fossils, and you in your superior wisdom have declared that they are no such thing, what features would "real" transitional fossils show that Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus etc. lack?

It seems this is a question CotW is keen to avoid answering.

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild
Typical evolutionists response. They always accuse you of not being educated in this regard.

Has it occurred to you to wonder why that happens to you so often?

 

[sonofdad]

I'm not saying this universe in particular, I'm saying the universe in general. Quantum physics exist in some physical universe, whether this one or otherwise.

Yes, but you accept this ill-defined omniscient being as having existed before the universe and being exempt from the need for a cause. Why are you so certain that the same couldn't apply to the laws of quantum physics? Just because they're measurable in the physical universe they couldn't have existed before it?

 

[cottage]

With all due respect buddy, if you think that we necessarily exist then you obviously dont know the nature of necessity. How about doing research on that instead of riding the Dawkins bandwagon

If I might butt in with my two-pennyworth here…

It is a necessary truth that something exists, ‘We’, the world, or whatever (anti-sceptical argument). But nothing exists necessarily, to include us, the world – or supernatural beings! If we said the universe doesn’t exist we would be uttering a self-contradiction, but there is no absurdity in conceiving of the world coming to an end tomorrow. Now it is held by theists that God is an entity that has always existed and who cannot fail to exist. And yet there is nothing absurd or contradictory in our saying ‘There is no God’. So the thing that need not be is while the thing that supposedly must be - isn’t?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is because you completely ignore the Mule.
You are asking for an example of macroevolution, yet are waiting for something out of a Pokemon game.

I don't really care what a scientists say...it is obvious that a mule, donkey, and horse are the same kind of animal. Clearly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is a necessary truth that something exists, ‘We’, the world, or whatever (anti-sceptical argument).

Talk about being factually incorrect from the start....

But nothing exists necessarily, to include us, the world – or supernatural beings!

Numbers do exist necessarily.

If we said the universe doesn’t exist we would be uttering a self-contradiction, but there is no absurdity in conceiving of the world coming to an end tomorrow.

Not only isn't that the point, but that isn't even the argument.

Now it is held by theists that God is an entity that has always existed and who cannot fail to exist. And yet there is nothing absurd or contradictory in our saying ‘There is no God’. So the thing that need not be is while the thing that supposedly must be - isn’t?

If God exists as a necessary being, then it is a contradiction in saying "There is no God">