Fascinating!

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe.

Or maybe evolutionists don't understand the nature of life and consciousness.

Could you provide evidence that in order to theorize in science, a scientist must be able to answer every question and fill every gap to support a theory. There is no scientific conclusion anywhere that has that power. If people had all that knowledge, there would be no need for science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To label her as "anti-science" could cause enmity.
To deal with errors & other differences as they occur
is more peaceful.

She beat me to that when she started off attacking my religious affiliation over a disagreement about vaccinations on another thread. Apparently, Methodists are sell outs. I am not sure how that supports an anti-vaccination position, but it was used to defend it none-the-less. I removed the line that previously appeared here while I was writing this post, as gratuitous, but I reserve the right to use it later if deemed necessary. It was really funny. I think there would have been chuckles, both public and private.

She makes a lot of broad statements regarding many fields of science, and other topics that are just her opinion, but applies those opinions as if they are facts that require no support. From what I can see, fact is rendered as "universal truth" in these discussions. She does this very robustly. I see no harm in addressing them with evidence and sometimes equal robustness.

It speaks of the pompitous of my love to do so.

But I do take your point if I am understanding it correctly.

 

[Deeje]

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your empty responses, but for the sake of argument....

So please tell us, O wise one, what specifically is the evidence that science uses to support its explanations of macroevolution, and why? Please explain why there are consistent similarities between species, and not "Kinds"? Why do we all use similar proteins, similar processes, and similar genes to function as biological organisms? Why are some organisms more or less specialized than others? Why are we all pro and eukaryotic? Maybe you can also take the "phylogeny challenge", and hopefully perform better than this person regarding "kinds"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNvQQixGhaU

Seriously....this guy in the video is the best you've got? I have a feeling that he was "naturally selected"...

You think that this fellow somehow represents all who believe in creation? Says a lot about you actually.

If we all have one designer, then similarities are to be expected.
An artist is identified by his brush strokes and use of color you know.

I have explained what "kinds" entail. No need to rehash. Just show us any creature morphing outside of its "family" and it will be enough. No guesswork permitted though.

It is always easy to close your eyes and cover your ears, and keep chanting, "God is real, everything else is false, and no one can prove me wrong". All delusions are subjective and personal, and I believe should stay that way. Unfortunately, whenever you tell a lie over and over again, it will begin to sound like the truth to you. For example, you can always claim to speak French to those who don't speak French. It is only when confronted with someone that does speak French, when the lie is exposed. You can always criticize science to those that don't understand science. But you will need to bring evidence to the table, to convince those that do. Since you can't posit a specific challenge to any Scientific Theory, law, facts, or tenet, your uncertainty claims are as toothless, as the zero evidence you bring to the table to support them.

You haven't a clue what a creator is, who a creator is, what is in the mind of a creator, or what a creator has in mind for us. Are you a God? So how do you know what a God wants or needs? It all exists in your compartmentalized mind. It only exists as the solution to some underlying emotional insecurity or fear. There will always be science deniers. But they offer nothing more than obstinance and ignorance. They want science to acknowledge a reality in which everything is possible, and everything is not possible. However, they do offer an inside glimpse into the pathology of fear and human insecurity, especially when indoctrinated beliefs are threatened by rational scientific explanations. I would rather worship Trump as a God, then "...a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” These are the factual accounts, observed in the man-made foreign book you choose to worship. And, choose to force your children to worship.

Thank you for confirming what I have said many times....there is no evidence provided for your side of this argument...all I ever get is a tirade of insults and put-downs. Where is your evidence? If science is so sure that macro-evolution is a fact, then why not produce the goods that show that it's true? Why the need for "might have's" and "could have's" in the literature? Why behave as if I have insulted your mother?

The truth is, in macro-evolution, science is taking a 'best guess' based entirely on what they want to be true....not on what the real evidence is saying...which isn't much. Fossils can't say anything without a scientist's hand up their bony anatomy.

Science is not a thing or a who. It is a "systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Which would be fine if there was actual experiments that backed up what they claim. The experiments used to proffer "macro-evolution" are based on adaptation. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that any creature can morph itself into a whole new taxonomy. If there is then please share it.

What did Darwin see on the Galapagos? He saw adaptation....nothing more. Calling it "micro-evolution" is a dishonest means to "suggest" that it can go much further, when there is no experiment known to man that can back it up. Science cannot provide any solid evidence for their scenario of 'amoebas to dinosaurs' and I think you know it. Provide the evidence for this and I will have nothing more to say.

It is you that have created this uncertainty straw man, that mischaracterizes, and misinterprets the methodology used in science. It is almost hypocritical for anyone to express their uncertainty about the same science that is literally in their faces everyday. How can anyone deny their dependency on the laws of physics? How can anyone deny the countless examples of a science, that are not based on guesses, hunches, or speculations. I suspect that only the science that challenges the rationality of religious belief, is dismissed first, and the manufactured contrived evidence is added second. Where is your certainty in a Garden of Eden, or the mind of a God? Where is this "real" evidence that is not just speculation? If God gave us free will, and the freedom to use it, why would He punish us for doing so? Why would a God imprison us in a sin that He created in the first place? In fact, why would a God need us at all? What can any humans offer a God(s)? Simply asserting that science is not absolutely right about one thing, does not mean that you are absolutely right about your beliefs. Stop using science to justify your beliefs. They should stand on their own merits.

LOL...was that a tantrum?

If you'd really like the answers to those questions, I can provide them straight from the Bible....but I have a hunch that it would somehow be a waste of time.

Your moth experiment only demonstrates your myopic, and selective view of Evolution. Please stop using science to highlight you level of ignorance. It is embarrassing for me as well.

Now, what is embarrassing is the fact that the Peppered Moth is given by science to students as an example of evolution. Its a prime example of adaptation. You can't use adaptation to invent a process that is not demonstrated in nature.

Let's take another example...Horse evolution...note the years between these specimens.

Here is an image depicting the size of the original horse 'ancestor' and today's version...

Now can you provide any substantive evidence that the small creature that is said to be the beginning of the horse family (what were they before this I wonder?) is even related to the rest of the animals in the graph in some kind of continuous line of evolution as science suggests?

Since there is nothing in between these creatures millions of years apart to suggest a gradual change, wasn't Darwin also a bit worried that if the links between creatures were missing, then it would topple the whole theory...? They have never been found.

Do we have a range of sizes in the horse family even today?

Are they all equines? Have they ever been anything but equines?
Science doesn't know, but assumes a lot because the theory demands it.

Do you even know what small changes over time even mean? Do you even know the relationship between our mutation rate, our sense organs, and our environment? What do you think they all have in common? How is time, geography, climate, predation, etc., all variable in macroevolution. Since it would be infinitely harder for you to address these questions, I suppose, "God did it all", will have to do. Especially, since you believe that all of science amounts to just guesswork, and questionable evidence, right?

I never said "all of science amounts to just guesswork, and questionable evidence" though, did I?
The only questionable science is related to that which science cannot prove and offers guesses based on biased thinking and a questionable interpretation of "evidence". Provable science has no need to do that.
I am not, and never have been anti-science. The Creator to me is the greatest scientist in existence.

Small changes over time would not take any creature outside of it taxonomic family.....science has never seen that happen. It assumes that it did. Big difference to being able to back it up with something other than suggestions. Have you ever heard a complaint in court where the witness was being led by the opposition?
You are all being led IMO....like bulls with a ring in your nose...but hey, you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am....just don't call evolution a "fact" when you don't really have any facts.

Are you really blaming scientist tor the nuclear bomb, climate change, disease, and suffering, and giving governments, political leaders, the industrial military complex, corporate America, big business, wall street, the rich, and political ideologies a pass? Critical thinking and self-criticism are certainly not your strong suits, are they?

I am blaming men of science for taking their knowledge to places where it could create enormous harm to the earth and to all the creatures that share our planet. Critical thinking and self-criticism are not the strongest attributes of science either. (in case you hadn't noticed)

Who is responsible for the all the plastic and other non-biodegradable waste polluting this earth? The smog choking our air? The poisonous chemicals in our waterways? Who gave humans the ability to bring all life to the brink of extinction? I know who gave them that ability....don't you?

 

[Deeje]

She beat me to that when she started off attacking my religious affiliation over a disagreement about vaccinations on another thread. Apparently, Methodists are sell outs. I am not sure how that supports an anti-vaccination position, but it was used to defend it none-the-less.

Hang on....wasn't my accusation of a 'sell out' to do with evolution? Doesn't your religion support evolution 100%?
It had nothing to do with vaccinations as I recall.

I removed the line that previously appeared here while I was writing this post, as gratuitous, but I reserve the right to use it later if deemed necessary. It was really funny. I think there would have been chuckles, both public and private.

How magnanimous of you. Your problem from the start was me criticizing a Christian organization for leaving God out of his own creation? Well shame on me.

She makes a lot of broad statements regarding many fields of science, and other topics that are just her opinion, but applies those opinions as if they are facts that require no support. From what I can see, fact is rendered as "universal truth" in these discussions. She does this very robustly. I see no harm in addressing them with evidence and sometimes equal robustness.

My opinions are expressed confidently...is there a law forbidding confidence that I am unaware of? The many fields of science that are attached to supporting evolution are fair game IMO. The same criteria applies to all of them. Produce the evidence that shows no guesswork, supposition or suggestion.....simple.

If I had no confidence in my views, then they are not worth having or sharing. I have not come by them ignorantly, but I have put in a lot of research, and it has always ended the same way......no substantive evidence for any of it.

BTW...."indecisive" is not what what Christians are supposed to be. (James 1:5-8)

My criticism is of science, not necessarily those who support it unless they demonstrate that typical personality trait that launches defensiveness as though I had insulted their mother. Then their posts get personal for some reason.

It is possible to discuss controversial topics without getting our knickers in a knot, surely?

 

[Revoltingest]

She beat me to that when she started off attacking my religious affiliation over a disagreement about vaccinations on another thread. Apparently, Methodists are sell outs. I am not sure how that supports an anti-vaccination position, but it was used to defend it none-the-less. I removed the line that previously appeared here while I was writing this post, as gratuitous, but I reserve the right to use it later if deemed necessary. It was really funny. I think there would have been chuckles, both public and private.

She makes a lot of broad statements regarding many fields of science, and other topics that are just her opinion, but applies those opinions as if they are facts that require no support. From what I can see, fact is rendered as "universal truth" in these discussions. She does this very robustly. I see no harm in addressing them with evidence and sometimes equal robustness.

It speaks of the pompitous of my love to do so.

But I do take your point if I am understanding it correctly.

To the extent practical, personal affronts should
be set aside, lest they detract from conversation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hang on....wasn't my accusation of a 'sell out' to do with evolution? Doesn't your religion support evolution 100%?
It had nothing to do with vaccinations as I recall.

It was a cheap and meaningless shot raised during the discussion of vaccinations. It was untrue and unwarranted regardless of the excuse you use for raising it.

How magnanimous of you. Your problem from the start was me criticizing a Christian organization for leaving God out of his own creation? Well shame on me.

No my problem is no such thing. Your criticism of anything is just your opinion and does not reflect reality. You would have to establish a number of conditions as facts and you simply do not have the ability to do that nor do you have the evidence to support that. Accepting evolution does not remove God from creation. It demonstrates that some people deify scripture and some do not.

My opinions are expressed confidently...is there a law forbidding confidence that I am unaware of? The many fields of science that are attached to supporting evolution are fair game IMO. The same criteria applies to all of them. Produce the evidence that shows no guesswork, supposition or suggestion.....simple.

Confidence does not have to arise from the validity of an opinion in my experience. I have met many people that are confident in their opinions and do not know what they are talking about. I see that I continue to meet them. People are free to be confident in their opinions, but that is not a criteria for determining the validity of opinion outside of the mind and the mouth of the one rendering it.

The evidence supporting evolution has been widely available for over 150 years. Denial of that evidence has been around for at least that long as well. I do not see any amount of evidence persuading someone that cannot think outside of the dogma they have been indoctrinated with since birth.

If I had no confidence in my views, then they are not worth having or sharing. I have not come by them ignorantly. but I have put in a lot of research and it has always ended the same way......no substantive evidence for any of it.

The little pig that built his house of straw had confidence in his house too.

Then you did not do very good review of the literature. That is what you are really talking about. Actual research is a different thing entirely.

Confidence in an understanding and knowledge behind those views makes them worth having. The realization that you could be wrong and are willing to concede and revise those opinions makes them worth having. Anything less than that and one is just being intractable and repeating dogma.

BTW...."indecisive" is not what what Christians are supposed to be. (James 1:5-8)

They are also supposed to use the intellect that God gave them and not just put their nose in the grass and blindly eat whatever is tossed to them. Decision should be based on the best available evidence. Having an opinion based on such evidence in the face of logical fallacies, poor understanding and misplaced confidence is not indecision.

My criticism is of science, not necessarily those who support it unless they demonstrate that typical personality trait that launches defensiveness as though I had insulted their mother. Then their posts get personal for some reason.

Actually, your criticism of science or any other issue rapidly turns to criticism of the people opposed to your position. I have seen it with my own eyes. Sorry. I am confident in my opinions and for the reason that they are readily supported by evidence.

It is possible to discuss controversial topics without getting our knickers in a knot, surely?

I have never had that problem, but I have noted that others do and often at the expense of their own realization that they do. You do realize that the wording and tone of this response could easily and correctly be interpreted as you getting your knickers in a knot. Why else would a statement like that need to be raised or statements about another's religion being a sell out. I have often noted that those with the most robust opinions have the thinnest skin.

You, having thicker skin and great wisdom will not be put off by the direct and confident nature of my post here and I am glad to understand that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To the extent practical, personal affronts should
be set aside, lest they detract from conversation.

They do that indeed, but I can only control what I do. Some are more often prone to rely on them than others. This goes to the very core of your point as I see it.

I have, over time, optimized my ability to wield responses that fall into the category of personal affronts with more subtlety and effect. That has served me with some utility and lot of laughs, but I realize it has nothing to do with defending my position. It has always been my paradigm to limit the engagement of that type of activity to return fire only. I would just as soon discuss the actual issues and positions with another than to trade insults. But some people seem to go right there from the start as part of how they do things. I admit a streak of reciprocity that I sometimes entertain, because I want to. I know this will not advance my position or support it and can often further alienate the opposition. But the opposition that relies on that technique right out of the gate is more often not going to be swayed by sound, logical arguments based on evidence anyway.

But I cannot deny the wisdom of what you say. It is one of the reasons that I am becoming more selective about the people I engage on the internet. It was one of the things that lead me to leave the last forum I was on. A place that existed on enmity more than anything else. There are a couple of provisos that I have noted and must compromise on. Often, it is those prone to such tactics that are the only available opposition to discuss with and not every statement of opinion is intended as a challenge to the emotion of another. They can be a statement of fact as it is determined based on the evidence at hand. For example, I see many that use the products of science, but using those products is not evidence of support of science. Stating that someone that continually criticizes science with little or no factual basis for the criticism is not an attempt to establish personal discord, but given as an observation based on the evidence they provide. Of course, there are ways to render that conclusion and there are ways to render it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your empty responses, but for the sake of argument....

In my opinion this is not an expression of confidence of opinion based on a knowledge and understanding of a subject. It is a dismissive response based on ignorance and arrogance. It is an approach that I find common to your responses. It adds no strength of support for your claims and, as I noted in another post discussing my own responses, only serves to further divide you from the person you are trying to reach. Combined with other statements I have seen you routinely make, all something like this tells me is that here is a person that is not going to listen to a thing I say. No matter how soundly I say it.

Confidence of opinion is an important and laudable condition, but it is not a door closing a mind from new information and ideas as you use it.

 

[Revoltingest]

They do that indeed, but I can only control what I do. Some are more often prone to rely on them than others. This goes to the very core of your point as I see it.

I have, over time, optimized my ability to wield responses that fall into the category of personal affronts with more subtlety and effect. That has served me with some utility and lot of laughs, but I realize it has nothing to do with defending my position. It has always been my paradigm to limit the engagement of that type of activity to return fire only. I would just as soon discuss the actual issues and positions with another than to trade insults. But some people seem to go right there from the start as part of how they do things. I admit a streak of reciprocity that I sometimes entertain, because I want to. I know this will not advance my position or support it and can often further alienate the opposition. But the opposition that relies on that technique right out of the gate is more often not going to be swayed by sound, logical arguments based on evidence anyway.

But I cannot deny the wisdom of what you say. It is one of the reasons that I am becoming more selective about the people I engage on the internet. It was one of the things that lead me to leave the last forum I was on. A place that existed on enmity more than anything else. There are a couple of provisos that I have noted and must compromise on. Often, it is those prone to such tactics that are the only available opposition to discuss with and not every statement of opinion is intended as a challenge to the emotion of another. They can be a statement of fact as it is determined based on the evidence at hand. For example, I see many that use the products of science, but using those products is not evidence of support of science. Stating that someone that continually criticizes science with little or no factual basis for the criticism is not an attempt to establish personal discord, but given as an observation based on the evidence they provide. Of course, there are ways to render that conclusion and there are ways to render it.

As you say, it pays to limit how one engages with some posters.
Some are invariably hostile to me when disagreeing. Others
can recover from their anger. I handle them differently,
sometimes spanking the nastier ones. (I am after all, an angry
Scottish janitor, not a Zen master. In fact, on that side of me
family, we were sarcastically known as the "Gentle Johnstons".)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As you say, it pays to limit how one engages with some posters.
Some are invariably hostile to me when disagreeing. Others
can recover from their anger. I handle them differently,
sometimes spanking the nastier ones. (I am after all, an angry
Scottish janitor, not a Zen master. In fact, on that side of me
family were sarcastically known as the "Gentle Johnstons".)

I have noticed that, even on this forum, the level of acceptable behavior that orbits around hostile is greater than I would have expected. Some of that may be due to the ability of moderators to cover only so much ground and a focus on addressing issues that are more obvious, persistent and vocal. The empty can gets the worm.

I would say that I tend to handle them differently as well and those that are very overconfident in their opinions sometimes require equal levels of confidence in return. Within the bounds of acceptable behavior, course. At least so far.

I suppose one thing that gets me stirred up more than most events are long dead claims continually resurfacing from entirely novel sources offered as if they are unique, never before seen, universal truths and I am an idiot for not recognizing that truth. Add to the fact of those claims, the absence of any support and my ire can be triggered. This is more of a thing for me regarding science versus what someone believes, but I have raised it for other issues.

My family is loud, opinionated, educated and love arguing about anything. But also open to new ideas, perspectives and information. I am not sure what people refer to us as, but there seems to be no serious negative appellations. Though I once heard someone refer to us as "those book people". I felt pretty good about that.

For a cranky old Scottish janitor, you are very approachable, although, I did purchase bacon before I first responded to you, just in case.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have noticed that, even on this forum, the level of acceptable behavior that orbits around hostile is greater than I would have expected. Some of that may be due to the ability of moderators to cover only so much ground and a focus on addressing issues that are more obvious, persistent and vocal. The empty can gets the worm.

I would say that I tend to handle them differently as well and those that are very overconfident in their opinions sometimes require equal levels of confidence in return. Within the bounds of acceptable behavior, course. At least so far.

I suppose one thing that gets me stirred up more than most events are long dead claims continually resurfacing from entirely novel sources offered as if they are unique, never before seen, universal truths and I am an idiot for not recognizing that truth. Add to the fact of those claims, the absence of any support and my ire can be triggered. This is more of a thing for me regarding science versus what someone believes, but I have raised it for other issues.

My family is loud, opinionated, educated and love arguing about anything. But also open to new ideas, perspectives and information. I am not sure what people refer to us as, but there seems to be no serious negative appellations. Though I once heard someone refer to us as "those book people". I felt pretty good about that.

For a cranky old Scottish janitor, you are very approachable, although, I did purchase bacon before I first responded to you, just in case.

Damn book people!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Damn book people!

I know. They tried to burn us, but could not get a fire up to 451 F.

 

[Deeje]

It was a cheap and meaningless shot raised during the discussion of vaccinations. It was untrue and unwarranted regardless of the excuse you use for raising it.

Talking of thin skins......TBH, I was actually shocked to hear that the Methodist Church supports evolution. What was untrue about what I said? Denying creation if one identifies as a Christian, flies in the face of everything Jesus taught. Without the Bible, what would any of us know about Christ? Who is free to dispense with the word of God for the sake of saving face by supporting popular opinion? Is a perfect God ever wrong? Are flawed humans always right?

No my problem is no such thing. Your criticism of anything is just your opinion and does not reflect reality.

Well if that is the case, why respond in such a wounded fashion? If my opinion is just my opinion, then you have no need to be offended. I am so used to people bagging out my religion, its just water off a duck's back. Jesus said that his disciples would be hated....so its something all Christians should be prepared for. Has no one ever questioned the beliefs of your church before? (John 15:18-21) I'm sure the Jews felt the same way when Jesus attacked their religion.....but it was also his religion......or was it?

You would have to establish a number of conditions as facts and you simply do not have the ability to do that nor do you have the evidence to support that. Accepting evolution does not remove God from creation. It demonstrates that some people deify scripture and some do not.

Does the Bible say that God created evolution? If the Bible is the word of God as Jesus said, then who has authority to alter what it says? Genesis gives us the order of creation and states that God prepared the earth for the living creatures that he planned to put into specially prepared habitats, with plenty of food and fresh water already there for them. How does evolution fit into that scenario?

Why can't the Genesis account be true as stated? Perhaps its the 6 / 24 hour days? Did you know that Genesis does not say that the "days" were 24 hours long? And that the earth itself is very ancient and that creation took place, slowly and deliberately over probably millions of years? Would that make a difference? That makes the Bible agree with science regarding the age of the earth at least. The order in which living things appear also agrees with the order of appearance according to science. Life began in the ocean.

Confidence does not have to arise from the validity of an opinion in my experience. I have met many people that are confident in their opinions and do not know what they are talking about. I see that I continue to meet them. People are free to be confident in their opinions, but that is not a criteria for determining the validity of opinion outside of the mind and the mouth of the one rendering it.

Who said it was? We are all free willed beings, given enough rope by a Creator to show him what we are made of..... he is testing our mettle. So how do you think we are all doing so far?

The evidence supporting evolution has been widely available for over 150 years. Denial of that evidence has been around for at least that long as well. I do not see any amount of evidence persuading someone that cannot think outside of the dogma they have been indoctrinated with since birth.

You don't seem to see that it works both ways.....people raised with evolution are just as indoctrinated as they believe we are. You have to be "persuaded" either way. What do you believe makes the difference? (John 6:65)

The little pig that built his house of straw had confidence in his house too.

Until it collapsed.....I have a very firm belief that the scientific 'house of straw' will be blown away too. It has no foundation and the Bible says a 'storm' is coming. It is an impressive edifice built on sand.

Then you did not do very good review of the literature. That is what you are really talking about. Actual research is a different thing entirely.

Since the people who did the research wrote the literature, I don't know what else I was supposed to make of it.

I don't always refer to AIG but the figures in this video are pretty impressive.

Probability of Evolution

Can you counter anything this man says with science? What is the probability of life arising by chance?

Confidence in an understanding and knowledge behind those views makes them worth having. The realization that you could be wrong and are willing to concede and revise those opinions makes them worth having. Anything less than that and one is just being intractable and repeating dogma.

Christianity does not allow for indecisiveness. You have to choose either God or evolution because in this issue, you have two completely opposing views. Anyone that can make creation and the present understanding of evolution join forces is compromising both.

However, the Bible itself allows for a meeting in the middle, making science and the Bible compatible, which if there is a Creator God, has to be the case. He invented science after all.

They are also supposed to use the intellect that God gave them and not just put their nose in the grass and blindly eat whatever is tossed to them. Decision should be based on the best available evidence. Having an opinion based on such evidence in the face of logical fallacies, poor understanding and misplaced confidence is not indecision.

That works both ways again. Don't those who want to be seen as embracing both concepts just accept what is thrown to them? Science does not know how life arose. It assumes that the scenario is as described in their diagrams and deductions....yet they have nothing but those diagrams and deductions, fed by biastly interpreted evidence to support their claims. They don't even know if macro-evolution is possible...they have never seen it. They imagine it....and then feed it to people like its the only truth. We believe what we want to believe.

Actually, your criticism of science or any other issue rapidly turns to criticism of the people opposed to your position. I have seen it with my own eyes. Sorry. I am confident in my opinions and for the reason that they are readily supported by evidence.

Like yourself, I am inclined to return serve if I think it is warranted. But I sometimes react to posters who usually respond with personal attacks rather than to address the issues. I know when that happens that they have no other comeback.

In this thread so far have you seen or provided one shred of evidence in defense of macro-evolution?

You do realize that the wording and tone of this response could easily and correctly be interpreted as you getting your knickers in a knot. Why else would a statement like that need to be raised or statements about another's religion being a sell out. I have often noted that those with the most robust opinions have the thinnest skin.

Inspect your own skin first then is probably a good idea. This is an emotive issue...but do you know why?

Why should it be if the science has the answers and should not be questioned? If the response is a knee-jerk of emotion, then something has struck a nerve. I often wonder if evolutionists are just wishful thinkers who hope that they are right...because if we deny God is the Creator then we will not be invited into his Kingdom.
I believe that where we stand on this issue has long term consequences really.

If Jesus was there at his Father's side helping to create the whole shebang, (Genesis 1:27; Colossians 1:5-17; Matthew 19:4) then denying it in favor of what atheists teach is a bit telling, don't you think? What is that saying about the level of faith? Is it a thin veneer that can be destroyed with the slightest doubt?

You, having thicker skin and great wisdom will not be put off by the direct and confident nature of my post here and I am glad to understand that.

My hide is indeed tough through decades of assault by unbelievers and believers alike. I am not offended by anyone's posts but it seems redundant to keep rehashing the same issues with with the same poster.

In my opinion this is not an expression of confidence of opinion based on a knowledge and understanding of a subject. It is a dismissive response based on ignorance and arrogance.

I assure you I have done my homework. Perhaps you have not really researched the topic as well as you think you have?

It is an approach that I find common to your responses. It adds no strength of support for your claims and, as I noted in another post discussing my own responses, only serves to further divide you from the person you are trying to reach.

Then you completely misunderstand my reason for posting on these forums.
I am not trying to convince anyone who is already convinced....I am divided from them already.....its the undecided that I post for through these conversations. They can then go and research for themselves if what I am saying is true. Informed choice can only be achieved when all sides have been examined.

Combined with other statements I have seen you routinely make, all something like this tells me is that here is a person that is not going to listen to a thing I say. No matter how soundly I say it.

Have you or anyone else given me anything to listen to? I am waiting patiently for something other than excuses.

Confidence of opinion is an important and laudable condition, but it is not a door closing a mind from new information and ideas as you use it.

I have had seven decades to form my opinions.....I assure you none of them were reached without due diligence on my part. If you have anything that I have not heard a thousand times before then please impress me with the science.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Talking of thin skins......TBH, I was actually shocked to hear that the Methodist Church supports evolution. What was untrue about what I said? Denying creation if one identifies as a Christian, flies in the face of everything Jesus taught. Without the Bible, what would any of us know about Christ? Who is free to dispense with the word of God for the sake of saving face by supporting popular opinion? Is a perfect God ever wrong? Are flawed humans always right?


Well if that is the case, why respond in such a wounded fashion? If my opinion is just my opinion, then you have no need to be offended. I am so used to people bagging out my religion, its just water off a duck's back. Jesus said that his disciples would be hated....so its something all Christians should be prepared for. Has no one ever questioned the beliefs of your church before? (John 15:18-21) I'm sure the Jews felt the same way when Jesus attacked their religion.....but it was also his religion......or was it?



Does the Bible say that God created evolution? If the Bible is the word of God as Jesus said, then who has authority to alter what it says? Genesis gives us the order of creation and states that God prepared the earth for the living creatures that he planned to put into specially prepared habitats, with plenty of food and fresh water already there for them. How does evolution fit into that scenario?

Why can't the Genesis account be true as stated? Perhaps its the 6 / 24 hour days? Did you know that Genesis does not say that the "days" were 24 hours long? And that the earth itself is very ancient and that creation took place, slowly and deliberately over probably millions of years? Would that make a difference? That makes the Bible agree with science regarding the age of the earth at least. The order in which living things appear also agrees with the order of appearance according to science. Life began in the ocean.



Who said it was? We are all free willed beings, given enough rope by a Creator to show him what we are made of..... he is testing our mettle. So how do you think we are all doing so far?



You don't seem to see that it works both ways.....people raised with evolution are just as indoctrinated as they believe we are. You have to be "persuaded" either way. What do you believe makes the difference? (John 6:65)



Until it collapsed.....I have a very firm belief that the scientific 'house of straw' will be blown away too. It has no foundation and the Bible says a 'storm' is coming. It is an impressive edifice built on sand.



Since the people who did the research wrote the literature, I don't know what else I was supposed to make of it.

I don't always refer to AIG but the figures in this video are pretty impressive.

Probability of Evolution

Can you counter anything this man says with science? What is the probability of life arising by chance?



Christianity does not allow for indecisiveness. You have to choose either God or evolution because in this issue, you have two completely opposing views. Anyone that can make creation and the present understanding of evolution join forces is compromising both.

However, the Bible itself allows for a meeting in the middle, making science and the Bible compatible, which if there is a Creator God, has to be the case. He invented science after all.



That works both ways again. Don't those who want to be seen as embracing both concepts just accept what is thrown to them? Science does not know how life arose. It assumes that the scenario is as described in their diagrams and deductions....yet they have nothing but those diagrams and deductions, fed by biastly interpreted evidence to support their claims. They don't even know if macro-evolution is possible...they have never seen it. They imagine it....and then feed it to people like its the only truth. We believe what we want to believe.



Like yourself, I am inclined to return serve if I think it is warranted. But I sometimes react to posters who usually respond with personal attacks rather than to address the issues. I know when that happens that they have no other comeback.

In this thread so far have you seen or provided one shred of evidence in defense of macro-evolution?



Inspect your own skin first then is probably a good idea. This is an emotive issue...but do you know why?

Why should it be if the science has the answers and should not be questioned? If the response is a knee-jerk of emotion, then something has struck a nerve. I often wonder if evolutionists are just wishful thinkers who hope that they are right...because if we deny God is the Creator then we will not be invited into his Kingdom.
I believe that where we stand on this issue has long term consequences really.

If Jesus was there at his Father's side helping to create the whole shebang, (Genesis 1:27; Colossians 1:5-17; Matthew 19:4) then denying it in favor of what atheists teach is a bit telling, don't you think? What is that saying about the level of faith? Is it a thin veneer that can be destroyed with the slightest doubt?



My hide is indeed tough through decades of assault by unbelievers and believers alike. I am not offended by anyone's posts but it seems redundant to keep rehashing the same issues with with the same poster.



I assure you I have done my homework. Perhaps you have not really researched the topic as well as you think you have?



Then you completely misunderstand my reason for posting on these forums.
I am not trying to convince anyone who is already convinced....I am divided from them already.....its the undecided that I post for through these conversations. They can then go and research for themselves if what I am saying is true. Informed choice can only be achieved when all sides have been examined.



Have you or anyone else given me anything to listen to? I am waiting patiently for something other than excuses.



I have had seven decades to form my opinions.....I assure you none of them were reached without due diligence on my part. If you have anything that I have not heard a thousand times before then please impress me with the science.....

This post is replete with examples of the kind of needless insinuation and self-aggrandizement that I find compose the bulk of your posts. I see almost zero point in discussing anything with you. Nothing I say will be believed anyway since there are not two witnesses to verify it for you.

I have read your posts. In most cases it would not require seven minutes to come up with the responses I have seen. Are you sure you mean heard a thousand times before and not denied a thousand times before?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Talking of thin skins......TBH, I was actually shocked to hear that the Methodist Church supports evolution. What was untrue about what I said? Denying creation if one identifies as a Christian, flies in the face of everything Jesus taught. Without the Bible, what would any of us know about Christ? Who is free to dispense with the word of God for the sake of saving face by supporting popular opinion? Is a perfect God ever wrong? Are flawed humans always right?


Well if that is the case, why respond in such a wounded fashion? If my opinion is just my opinion, then you have no need to be offended. I am so used to people bagging out my religion, its just water off a duck's back. Jesus said that his disciples would be hated....so its something all Christians should be prepared for. Has no one ever questioned the beliefs of your church before? (John 15:18-21) I'm sure the Jews felt the same way when Jesus attacked their religion.....but it was also his religion......or was it?



Does the Bible say that God created evolution? If the Bible is the word of God as Jesus said, then who has authority to alter what it says? Genesis gives us the order of creation and states that God prepared the earth for the living creatures that he planned to put into specially prepared habitats, with plenty of food and fresh water already there for them. How does evolution fit into that scenario?

Why can't the Genesis account be true as stated? Perhaps its the 6 / 24 hour days? Did you know that Genesis does not say that the "days" were 24 hours long? And that the earth itself is very ancient and that creation took place, slowly and deliberately over probably millions of years? Would that make a difference? That makes the Bible agree with science regarding the age of the earth at least. The order in which living things appear also agrees with the order of appearance according to science. Life began in the ocean.



Who said it was? We are all free willed beings, given enough rope by a Creator to show him what we are made of..... he is testing our mettle. So how do you think we are all doing so far?



You don't seem to see that it works both ways.....people raised with evolution are just as indoctrinated as they believe we are. You have to be "persuaded" either way. What do you believe makes the difference? (John 6:65)



Until it collapsed.....I have a very firm belief that the scientific 'house of straw' will be blown away too. It has no foundation and the Bible says a 'storm' is coming. It is an impressive edifice built on sand.



Since the people who did the research wrote the literature, I don't know what else I was supposed to make of it.

I don't always refer to AIG but the figures in this video are pretty impressive.

Probability of Evolution

Can you counter anything this man says with science? What is the probability of life arising by chance?



Christianity does not allow for indecisiveness. You have to choose either God or evolution because in this issue, you have two completely opposing views. Anyone that can make creation and the present understanding of evolution join forces is compromising both.

However, the Bible itself allows for a meeting in the middle, making science and the Bible compatible, which if there is a Creator God, has to be the case. He invented science after all.



That works both ways again. Don't those who want to be seen as embracing both concepts just accept what is thrown to them? Science does not know how life arose. It assumes that the scenario is as described in their diagrams and deductions....yet they have nothing but those diagrams and deductions, fed by biastly interpreted evidence to support their claims. They don't even know if macro-evolution is possible...they have never seen it. They imagine it....and then feed it to people like its the only truth. We believe what we want to believe.



Like yourself, I am inclined to return serve if I think it is warranted. But I sometimes react to posters who usually respond with personal attacks rather than to address the issues. I know when that happens that they have no other comeback.

In this thread so far have you seen or provided one shred of evidence in defense of macro-evolution?



Inspect your own skin first then is probably a good idea. This is an emotive issue...but do you know why?

Why should it be if the science has the answers and should not be questioned? If the response is a knee-jerk of emotion, then something has struck a nerve. I often wonder if evolutionists are just wishful thinkers who hope that they are right...because if we deny God is the Creator then we will not be invited into his Kingdom.
I believe that where we stand on this issue has long term consequences really.

If Jesus was there at his Father's side helping to create the whole shebang, (Genesis 1:27; Colossians 1:5-17; Matthew 19:4) then denying it in favor of what atheists teach is a bit telling, don't you think? What is that saying about the level of faith? Is it a thin veneer that can be destroyed with the slightest doubt?



My hide is indeed tough through decades of assault by unbelievers and believers alike. I am not offended by anyone's posts but it seems redundant to keep rehashing the same issues with with the same poster.



I assure you I have done my homework. Perhaps you have not really researched the topic as well as you think you have?



Then you completely misunderstand my reason for posting on these forums.
I am not trying to convince anyone who is already convinced....I am divided from them already.....its the undecided that I post for through these conversations. They can then go and research for themselves if what I am saying is true. Informed choice can only be achieved when all sides have been examined.



Have you or anyone else given me anything to listen to? I am waiting patiently for something other than excuses.



I have had seven decades to form my opinions.....I assure you none of them were reached without due diligence on my part. If you have anything that I have not heard a thousand times before then please impress me with the science.....

I do not know of anyone raised on evolutionary biology. Never heard of it. Sounds like a sour grapes, made up statement to me. I am pretty confident in this opinion, but not in the sense that I am revealing some absolute truth as you seem to use the idea.

 

[Deeje]

This post is replete with examples of the kind of needless insinuation and self-aggrandizement that I find compose the bulk of your posts. I see almost zero point in discussing anything with you. Nothing I say will be believed anyway since there are not two witnesses to verify it for you.

I have read your posts. In most cases it would not require seven minutes to come up with the responses I have seen. Are you sure you mean heard a thousand times before and not denied a thousand times before?

I suppose I may have denied what science has said about as many times as you have denied the Bible.
And I have to say that with this response, you have not disappointed me either. To each his own......still no evidence presented...just more excuses for not doing so. I have come to expect this.

Have a nice day.....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why do you ask these questions about evolution and repeat the same points over and over again when you know they have been addressed and answered many, many times over? It comes off as disingenuous, Deeje.

Addressed, yes (mostly); but answered? Only with suggestion, using weak evidence....like, ‘Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales’.
Breaking the Chain of Early Whale Evolution

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you read carefully, it does not say God created the universe.

The fact remains that Einstein thought your version of Christianity was naive and childish. Next time you think about trotting out Einstein, you might want to remember what his superior intellect really thought.

Naive and Childish - get it?

You list your religion as Christian. Einstein felt belief in Christianity was childish and naive. If you want to quote Einstein, perhaps you should change your religion from Christian to Deist. If you don't, every time you quote Einstein, someone is going to remind you that Einstein thought Christianity to be naive and childish.

Grief! Which, again, has nothing to do w/ my post.

He believed there must be a reasoning power — ie., Intelligence— as the source of the universe!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suppose I may have denied what science has said about as many times as you have denied the Bible.
And I have to say that with this response, you have not disappointed me either. To each his own......still no evidence presented...just more excuses for not doing so. I have come to expect this.

Have a nice day.....

I am having a nice day right now. My responses have been calculated and based on the content of your posts. It was easy to do and you went to water on them as I expected. Actually you presented the evidence I based these posts on. I just pointed out your examples. Easy peasy.

Your responses were the only thing I expected based on all the evidence. It is not my fault that I have become very good at sussing this stuff out.

I bet that I could start responding to you in the most civil and neutral manner I could muster and you would still litter your posts with the same sort of personal jibes and sweeping, unsupported absolutes that appear to be your standard. I think all it takes is to hold a position that is the opposite of yours.

I say this exercise illustrated my points very nicely, but if I keep pointing out the evidence you keep providing, I imagine it will just get you to continue escalating. I honestly have no interest in that. I really do hope you have a good day. It has been fun and interesting.

 

[cladking]

Wolves did not suddenly start giving birth to dogs. As with the evolution of any new population, there was a gradual occurrence over time of variation, selection and fixation of traits as dogs diverged from the wolf stock. There would be a continuum of variation and selection over 15,000 to 40,000 years going from wolf to wolf-like to dog-like to dog.

If you can show this, if you can show any species slowly came into being over a long period of time then you are correct and I am wrong.

Experiment and observation continue to support Darwin's theory to this day. Proof is not a standard of science.

No experiment has ever shown any species to come into being over an extremely long period of time. Observation is interpreted to mean this is how species arise.

Observation without experiment is Look and See Science.