Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

Since you can't handle what I've already given you then let's try this. Let's analyze Natural Selection. Let's use the Finch.

Evolution teaches the Finch made small changes & it made changes in beak size. Yet it still was a Finch Correct? Then they use innuendo saying it somehow later in time became a higher order completely different species. Yet they can't give you any of the steps, the order, give the specifics of each step nor what it ultimately became. But it is used as a key example for evolution despite what I just said correct? Sounds like just so story with no demonstration or proof. . Then we will procede. Ok?

The evidence indicates this and evolution explains it. Speciation was determined based on the evidence.

You will have to cite all the relevant papers pointing out where they fail to provide the evidence showing speciation in finches. Your say so is against the evidence as it is known and cannot be accepted based on 'cause you said so'.

Finches are still examples of evolution. Sorry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that we can not have one without the other.

We had religion a long time before we had organized science, though, informal activities by primitive groups has been shown to follow aspects similar to scientific methodology.

I think they can co-exist, but I do not see them as linked the way you seem to be saying they are. Science is about the facts of the natural world around us. Religion is about beliefs beyond the natural world and faith that those beliefs exist.

From my perspective. Science provides us with the tools to understand the world and create from it in the form of technology, while religion can, but is not always necessary, provide us with a moral and ethical basis to the wise application of what we learn.

 

[Patriottechsan]

I'm not going there. Why? Because if I use certain sources you automatically discard them. So I'm just going to logically analyze Natural Selection using the Finch.
Now is it safe to assume that once the beak size adjustment was made. The Finch was fully adapted to its environment? So it's survival was secure now based on evolutionary teaching. Yes or no. If no please explain why not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since you can't handle what I've already given you then let's try this. Let's analyze Natural Selection. Let's use the Finch.

Evolution teaches the Finch made small changes & it made changes in beak size. Yet it still was a Finch Correct? Then they use innuendo saying it somehow later in time became a higher order completely different species. Yet they can't give you any of the steps, the order, give the specifics of each step nor what it ultimately became. But it is used as a key example for evolution despite what I just said correct? Sounds like just so story with no demonstration or proof. . Then we will procede. Ok?

Why do you ask if it is OK to proceed? You are going to continue posting the same ancient claims and faulty arguments that have been dusted off countless times before, while ignoring and denying any relevant points that go against what you want to believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not going there.

Sure, because you do not know the literature you rail against. Obviously.

Why? Because if I use certain sources you automatically discard them.

The sources offer nothing but opinion and invective against science they do not understand, so they can be dismissed as non-responsive. Sure.

So I'm just going to logically analyze Natural Selection using the Finch.

Logic you say? This should be interesting. Why not evidence? That is what science uses.

Now is it safe to assume that once the beak size adjustment was made. The Finch was fully adapted to its environment? So it's survival was secure now based on evolutionary teaching. Yes or no. If no please explain why not.

There was no conscious adjustment. The changes to the beak were driven by the existence of variation that was selected by the environment in which those finches with the variation existed in. If the environment is stable, those with the an advantageous difference in beak condition survive and reproduce. If the environment changes and existing beak condition is no longer advantageous, it will drift out or will be replaced by a condition that provides greater fitness to those that have it.

Populations shift around novel or existing variation responding to the environment continually. There are thousands of studies that demonstrate this.

Can you tell us what you think natural selection is?

 

[Patriottechsan]

No. I'm going to an analyze Natural Selection step by step as we do it together along the way so nothing is left behind. If you can't handle it let me know. If you keep attacking me personally for having a different opinion when you haven't even let me go through it w/ o you just throwing up your biased opinion. Then you are proving yourself a victim of those I quoted. I'm sorry for you then. I prefer to be an independent thinker & analyzer & not one spouting what I was taught to Think. That's your right but it's sad & proves how successful they've been..

 

[Patriottechsan]

I'm doing it individually not by population shift to help it make more sense. Due to how they teach you & have admitted to.

 

[shunyadragon]

To illustrate this. Answer this question Evolutionist, Darwin or Theistic, Do you believe in eternal existence?
We know Creationist do already due to belief in eternal God, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

The science of evolution only deals with the evolution of life after abiogenesis, and the science of abiogenesis deals with the inorganic evolution that results in organic life.

In terms of how the science of cosmology and how science considers whether our physical existence is eternal or not, ah . . . well guess what! Science cannot resolve whether our physical existence is eternal or not, because at present it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Most cosmologists and physicists, but not all, consider our universe to begin in either a singularity or in a black hole. Some support the hypothesis that our universe is cyclic in one form or another. By far most scientist consider the multiverse hypothesis is the best explanation of our physical existence beyond our universe. What Quantum Mechanics describes in terms of the Quantum World at the smallest scales of quanta is a physical existence with no known beginning nor end, but beyond this it remains unknown, and as far as science is concerned it is not necessary to answer the question to do science.

One misconception that needs to be cleared up is the science of evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology nor physics make no assumptions nor statements of belief whether God exists or not, nor any assumption of theism nor atheism.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm doing it individually not by population shift to help it make more sense. Due to how they teach you & have admitted to.

But individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So by making this shift, you negate the whole thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm doing it individually not by population shift to help it make more sense. Due to how they teach you & have admitted to.

So your training is in science education? You have researched science teaching methods extensively? You have studied evolution and know it inside and out? Not likely considering you opened with huge mistakes and have not even had the ethical aptitude to admit them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So by making this shift, you negate the whole thing.

How can that be true? He is clearly posting with the authority and expertise of one who has devoted decades of his life to understanding biology, evolution, scientific theory and science.

I just made popcorn. Anybody want some?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm doing it individually not by population shift to help it make more sense. Due to how they teach you & have admitted to.

Can you tell me what you think natural selection is? What is speciation? How do you know when it happens? What do you think the fossil record is? What are two termites? Is that two individual termites or two colonies of termites? How do you keep the different species of termites on a boat made out of wood?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I'm going to an analyze Natural Selection step by step as we do it together along the way so nothing is left behind. If you can't handle it let me know. If you keep attacking me personally for having a different opinion when you haven't even let me go through it w/ o you just throwing up your biased opinion. Then you are proving yourself a victim of those I quoted. I'm sorry for you then. I prefer to be an independent thinker & analyzer & not one spouting what I was taught to Think. That's your right but it's sad & proves how successful they've been..

An independent thinker that is repeating step by step an argument that has been made a million times and debunked as often. Really?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm doing it individually not by population shift to help it make more sense. Due to how they teach you & have admitted to.

Do you think that mutations result in an individual being born a different species than its parents?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you can't handle what I've already given you then let's try this. Let's analyze Natural Selection. Let's use the Finch.

Evolution teaches the Finch made small changes & it made changes in beak size. Yet it still was a Finch Correct? Then they use innuendo saying it somehow later in time became a higher order completely different species. Yet they can't give you any of the steps, the order, give the specifics of each step nor what it ultimately became. But it is used as a key example for evolution despite what I just said correct? Sounds like just so story with no demonstration or proof. . Then we will procede. Ok?

You cannot refute that which you do not understand. Of course the finch remains a finch, just as you are still an ape. Change of kinds is a creationist strawman.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I'm going to an analyze Natural Selection step by step as we do it together along the way so nothing is left behind. If you can't handle it let me know. If you keep attacking me personally for having a different opinion when you haven't even let me go through it w/ o you just throwing up your biased opinion. Then you are proving yourself a victim of those I quoted. I'm sorry for you then. I prefer to be an independent thinker & analyzer & not one spouting what I was taught to Think. That's your right but it's sad & proves how successful they've been..

Are you going to tell us that it is improbable for natural selection to result in a specific change or species? The odds are like a gazillion bazillion to 1 against it. Of course, that only works if you handle the results of evolution like they were a goal.

Is this where you are going? How could I know that? Magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm doing it individually not by population shift to help it make more sense. Due to how they teach you & have admitted to.

Nope, evolution always deals with populations.

 

[sayak83]

To illustrate this. Answer this question Evolutionist, Darwin or Theistic, Do you believe in eternal existence?
We know Creationist do already due to belief in eternal God, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

Read a book on evolutionary biology maybe and come back with a more informed critique.
EVOLUTION The History Of Life On Earth : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Patriottechsan]

Abogenesis itself violates the law of science & Nature. That forces evolutionist to absolutely use FAITH & SUPERNATURAL for evolution to even become possible. If you can't admit that then you really have a problem. You've really proven the quotes I gave to be true. To be truly scientific you'd have to prove that LIFE can come from NON LIFE. That is one of the prominent Laws of Science that is known that CANT HAPPEN. It's never been done in science lab experiment. It's just an example of another JUST SO STORY done W/O DEMONSTRATION & TOLERANCE OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for the ATHEISTIC AGENDA.

That is an AUTOMATIC NON STARTER for evolution even though you cant admit it. You're so tied to the theory due to what I've quoted & emotional reasons sadly YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. I truly hate that for your sake. Think for yourself not like they taught you to & what they hid from you.

I have a challenge that would give you or anyone the Nobel Award for Science & riches untold. Prove Life can come from NON LIFE. Look at all the Intelligent Design you have today at your finger tips. Yet its still not done. Believe me if possible it would have already been done & many times over.


I don't even have to critically analyze Natural Selection to show you it's flaws.

This seems like having mother nature as if it actually had a thinking reasoning brain carving a statue with use of weather, wind, erosion etc. Then mother nature deciding it wanted to turn it into a living being. Evolutionist have to believe that's possible because in effect its what they do. They nor you will admit it despite its truth. Talk about Faith & Supernatural.

I'll leave this with you tonight. I'll get back tomorrow after enjoying Easter sservice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Abogenesis itself violates the law of science & Nature.

What laws of science and nature does it violate. Explain your answer. Please include a review of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how they apply.

That forces evolutionist to absolutely use FAITH & SUPERNATURAL for evolution to even become possible.

Not at all. This has already been explained to you in several different ways. Is this an indication that you are not even reading our posts? That is not very courteous.

Evolution takes place in life that already exists. Even if life were to have come about divinely, evolution is occurring. We do not know how life originated. Evolution is still occurring.

If you can't admit that then you really have a problem.

There is a problem here. It is that you do not understand what you are trying to debunk. That is one reason you are failing.

You've really proven the quotes I gave to be true.

You mean the out of context quote mines. They were a set up, designed to give you the answer you desire. They prove nothing about science or those that accept it.

To be truly scientific you'd have to prove that LIFE can come from NON LIFE.

No. Science does not offer proofs. To be clear, in order to explain that facts of evolution and demonstrate it, you do not need to know how life originated.

That is one of the prominent Laws of Science that is known that CANT HAPPEN.

There is no such law in science. You are confused and do not understand science.

It's never been done in science lab experiment.

True. Abiogenesis has not been established or replicated by experiment. This does not mean that life did not arise that way or that it cannot be replicated in an experiment.

It's just an example of another JUST SO STORY done W/O DEMONSTRATION & TOLERANCE OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for the ATHEISTIC AGENDA.

I am not an atheist. I accept evolution. Your example is the example of a person that has ideological dislike for science, but does not understand science and is not making a valid argument against what is known or explained in science.

That is an AUTOMATIC NON STARTER for evolution even though you cant admit it. You're so tied to the theory due to what I've quoted & emotional reasons sadly YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. I truly hate that for your sake. Think for yourself not like they taught you to & what they hid from you.

It means nothing.

I have a challenge that would give you or anyone the Nobel Award for Science & riches untold. Prove Life can come from NON LIFE. Look at all the Intelligent Design you have today at your finger tips. Yet its still not done. Believe me if possible it would have already been done & many times over.

Scientists are researching this even as we type. Well, they probably took the weekend off, but still.

There are several proposed and valid hypotheses that await testing and evidence is continually being gathered.

Failing to show or showing how life originated will not change the theory of evolution or the facts it explains.

I don't even have to critically analyze Natural Selection to show you it's flaws.

So I got it right and you really had nothing to argue with except the canned claims about probabilities that have been previously debunked by so many, so often.

This seems like having mother nature as if it actually had a thinking reasoning brain carving a statue with use of weather, wind, erosion etc. Then mother nature deciding it wanted to turn it into a living being. Evolutionist have to believe that's possible because in effect its what they do. They nor you will admit it despite its truth. Talk about Faith & Supernatural.

That makes no sense and is nothing claimed by science. Do you have any evidence, facts or logic to bring to bear here or is it just this confused and made up fantasy about science that you intend carry on with?

I'll leave this with you tonight. I'll get back tomorrow after enjoying Easter sservice.

Enjoy the services. I will be enjoying them as well.