Fascinating!

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes....educated guessing....we know.

Define "natural phenomena".



By definition, a theory is......
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;
opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention."

Changing the definition of the word "theory" to pretend that it doesn't mean that, does not give science a license to fabricate evidence to suit their supposition.

Atheist scientists are so keen to get rid of all notion of a Creator that they will find a fossil and make up a story about its origins and its ancestors....then present it in a timeline without an ounce of solid evidence that it ever happened that way.
Its supposition masquerading as fact.

That is the kind of science that I object to. OK?



Now this just makes me smile...I said...."Disproving some science is incredibly easy...most people have no idea how much of what science projects is actually hot air."

The laws that govern nature did not write themselves IMO. I respect those laws as coming from the Creator....but I do not respect science suggesting that these laws dropped out of nowhere to govern the entire material universe. So I have no beef with factual science at all....just the theoretical sort that presents conjecture and states it as fact......when they actually invented the facts with nothing but the flimsiest excuse to suggest that its true.

One of my favorites is whale evolution....

"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

Can you read what is written there for students and tell me where the actual evidence is for whales ever being four-legged land dwellers, apart from the supposition and suggestion by science in trying to support their theory?...and look! there is an ear bone that "strongly resemble those of living whales."

Sorry but this is a load of hogwash.



Perhaps I should highlight one important point here.....I have a belief system and you guys claim not to. I have studied your 'scientific evidence' and found that it is based on nothing but assumption, assertions and suggestions.....there is no real evidence that macro-evolution is even possible.

If you can't prove that your theory is correct, then you have what I have....."belief".
Annoying, isn't it?

I can't prove the existence of my Creator any more than science can prove that an amoeba morphed itself into a dinosaur. You want facts....there's a fact.

I also wondered(like "skeptic thinker") why you keep regurgitating debunked rote learned creationists soundbites? Let's begin with the difference between a capitalized Theory(Scientific Theory), and a non capitalized theory(hunch, belief, idea, guess, hypothesis). A Scientific Theory is a fact-supported explanation of a natural phenomena, "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments". In other words, based on evidence not faith. Based on inductive/deductive reasoning, not by any top-down presuppositional biases. A natural phenomena, is any event that occurs in nature that is not created by man. It is any naturally occurring event(cause and effect), that obeys, and is consistent with the laws of physics.

Your poor understanding of science is remarkable. If you have studied science, then science has failed you. Especially, if you believe that science " is based on nothing but assumptions, assertions and suggestions...". This assertion is not even rational. Do you really think that any Scientific Theory, is supported only by a body of suggestions, guesses, assertions, and assumptions? Do you think that any scientific methodology, would ignore things like evidence, facts, data, observations, experimental results, falsification, and replication? Do you think that the entire peer review oversight system, chooses not to scrutinize the evidence supporting any research? Do you really think this?

Fortunately, scientist are as effected by what an adults believes in, as an elephant is effected by a flea biting his back. Because of their dedication and commitment to scientific pursuits, our society will continue to move forward, by solving the many real and practical problems that we(humanity) will all face in the future. I sincerely hope that our future will not become a religious version of the "Stepford Wives". Or worst, a religious Theocracy, where priest rule in the name of a God(s). Once the mind goes, our freedoms will soon follow.

If you believe in mutations, then you believe in macroevolution. If you believe that more complex organisms evolve from less complex organisms, then you believe in macroevolution. If you believe that you look more like your own siblings, than like the siblings of others, then you believe in macroevolution. If you believe that our genes determine our species, then you believe in macroevolution. It would be pointless to point out all the genetic, chemical(oxygen markers), anatomical and physiological, cellular, radiological(isotope markers), fossil consistency, geological, and anthropological evidence supporting macroevolution and common descent. Especially, since not only would you not understand, but because of cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't care. Again, it's the children I feel sorry for.

Other than being "fascinating", and tragic at the same time, this is not a thread to highlight and confirm your ignorance of science. That has truly been accomplished. Since you can't disprove even ONE scientific law, fact, Theory, or tenet, your credibility and integrity is at best questionable. Maybe you should limit your opinions only to those areas where evidence is unnecessary? Like religion. There are many other threads in this forum that don't involve science at all. Might I suggest that they might be more supportive of your views.

What is annoying, is when people make extraordinary claims, and then avoid providing extraordinary evidence to support them. What is annoying is people who ignore the relevance of what degrees of certainty mean in science. What is annoying is when people claim that if science can't absolutely prove anything, then their belief is correct by default. What is annoying is listening to people talk about their beliefs, when they can spend more of their time discovering the true nature of their own reality. IMHO

 

[Polymath257]

There’s very little understanding and agreement about QT.

I strongly disagree. We understand enough to be able to use it in a wide variety of contexts. We can use it to make accurate predictions of what will happen in the real world to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

There is universal consensus on how to use QM to get testable predictions that can be verified by experiment.

The difficulties are NOT on the level of the science. The difficulties are at the level of *philosophy*. And, truthfully, if you attempt to use classical notions to understand quantum phenomena (like most philosophers do), then you will get yourself into all sorts of trouble, The classical notions are *wrong* as has been shown by QM itself.

Mankind’s grasp of reality is not even a drop in the bucket.

Very possibly true. But it is far more than the quarter drop we had 400 years ago.

To arbitrarily say there is no Intelligence behind these interacting and cooperating laws, and their strengths, efficiencies and limits, is to deny what empirical evidence consistently reveals when integrated patterns are discovered in other fields of science.

Not at all. We know that feedback loops produce complexity. That alone explains a great deal that is too often attributed to intelligence. But it goes deeper. How *could* intelligence be responsible for the basic laws? Intelligence itself only exists because of the actions of those laws, after all.

 

[cladking]

Haven't seen a 'Hopeful monster' advocate in a while.

What is that.

Not a fact. A unique individual is not a new species.

ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN LIFE is sudden and this applies on every level and type of life. We don't take 40,000 years to die.

There is no such thing as a "species" in real life; there are only individuals with individual consciousness. You CAN'T understand evolution from the perspective of species and without consciousness. Individuals can't "evolve" and are reflections of their parents. There is no "fittest" because all individuals are fit. They don't survive unless they are fit. (yes, humans are performing a perverse experiment to populate the planet with wholly unfit individuals)(but even if we succeed each individual will have individual consciousness).

When populations of a given species of individuals are very low they will immediately give rise to a new species if the behavior that was selected out is common to other individuals but not to the survivors.

Evolution is driven by BEHAVIOR and not so much genes or fitness. I'm talking about major change in species. I'm talking about the fossil record.

Of course near extinctions can be local so the original species still survives elsewhere.

What experiments? What observations?

All experiment and observation says he is wrong about "evolution". Logic as well says he was wrong.

Define "fit" as you understand it. Also, explain what "survival of he fittest" means as you understand it.

I understand the term was invented by his detractors but it is highly apropos.

All individuals with the capability to reproduce will determine the future. They are each for all practical purposes from the perspective of the nature of change in species equally fit and equally able to engage in the behavior that will determine the future of the species. Some might be sick or lame and they have much lesser chance of reproducing unless they are unaffected by a population bottleneck (think last man alive) .

 

[cladking]

It was incomplete, to be sure. You don;t think that the modern ToE is the same as Darwin's, do you?

Yes. I understand it has evolved a great deal and is almost certainly far more reflective of reality than Darwin.

I am a little concerned that there's still a lot of "Look and See Science" and that they are taking a poor perspective to view life and change but they certainly have come a long way since Darwin.

 

[cladking]

That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Evolution is driven by the environment. If the environment doesn't change, there is no pressure to evolve. When the environment changes, life forms change or become extinct.

Yes... but.

It's not the gradual changes in environment that creates a new species. I'm not ruling out a gradual change being reflected in macroevolutionary changes but as a rule I believe that it is behavior that is common to a species and is selected out.

I believe that most events that cause change in species cause almost universal fatality among those individuals behaving like the species. The only individuals left have atypical behavior driven by the same "bad" genes. These individuals breed a new species.

Small environment changes over long time periods, like the naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles affecting different parts of the earth, bring about small adaptations. "Sudden" massive changes, like a meteor strike, bring about vast changes and extinctions.

Yes... Exactly. I believe most extinction events are sudden and if survivors are atypical they breed a new a new species based on their common genes that drive the atypical behavior.

Recently someone tried taming mink through breeding and ended up with a new animal. This is the way new species arise.

 

[Jainarayan]

It’s His Kingdom we promote.

I think it pretty much goes without saying they're a package deal. What's the point of preaching about Jesus without implicitly tacking on the why of him? No Christian I've ever known talks about him only as a teacher.

 

[Deeje]

Well, I think it is ultimately that they don't want to admit a kinship with apes. Since they see the differences between us and other apes as being macroevolution, one way to deny our relationship is to deny that such changes are even possible.

Can you give us any sound scientific "evidence" that apes evolved into humans?
What did science have to acknowledge about Neanderthals? Were they stooped over, half man / half ape? Or were they fully upright and erect like modern humans? Were they even ape-like?

Is there sound scientific evidence that proves that all humans were once ape-like cave dwellers?
Do we have evidence of primitive peoples living even in today's world? what does it prove?

Denying a relationship with apes is simply observing the obvious difference between them and us in countless ways. Again does similarity in physical structure prove that we are related, or does it simply imply that the basic skeletal framework is so sound that it has many applications for different creatures by an intelligent Creator? Do we not see this principle applied in architecture? If the engineering is sound, the principles can apply to many different structures.

Another aspect is that many don't believe in the longer time spans required for macro-level changes to occur and they also adopt the biblical idea of 'kinds' (which is never really explained) and insist change outside of a kind isn't allowed.

Please show us any experiment performed by biologists where any adaptive change in any creature took them outside of their taxonomic family? A Biblical "kind" places a creature in one family of creatures, whether they can interbreed or not. Humans can cross varieties within a kind to produce a cross between the two, but they are invariably sterile. There is a natural barrier there that ends the line. e.g. Horses and donkeys produce mules. Mules are sterile. They have crossed lions and tigers, but again these would not naturally mate in the wild, and their offspring are usually sterile.

As far as I am aware there was not a single experiment done where the creatures did not remain true to their "kind" with minor adaptations that facilitated survival in a changed environment.
What did Darwin observe? Were the finches becoming something other than varieties of finches? The tortoises becoming something other than a different variety of tortoise.....? Were the iguanas not still clearly identifiable as iguanas?

In speciation experiments, the Hawthorn flies were still flies.....the stickleback fish were still sticklebacks of a new variety, and bacteria remained simply new strains of the same bacteria.....what conclusion is reached by those who don't need to force belief that fights with what science "knows" rather than what science "assumes"? This is just simple deduction....not complicated guesswork.

Finally, I do think that many simply don't realize that you can get a million dollars one cent at a time if you accumulate for long enough.

Ah, but the one cent pieces need someone to collect them, tally them, and keep them in one place. They don't accumulate on their own....do they?

 

[Deeje]

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.

Oh, but the science buffs continual denial of the possibility of an Intelligent 'first cause' of everything, just makes them look disingenuous to us.

The points have not been addressed at all....they are merely waved away with comments like......"you don't understand science"...or "you don't know what you are talking about".....do you honestly think that answers the questions for genuine seekers of the truth?

Can science prove that evolution, on the scale that they suggest, is even possible? I have not seen a shred of solid evidence that shows anything but wishful thinking and educated guessing.

Got something to show us? Prove me wrong.

 

[Deeje]

I think it pretty much goes without saying they're a package deal. What's the point of preaching about Jesus without implicitly tacking on the why of him? No Christian I've ever known talks about him only as a teacher.

Oh, but it's not a package deal.....Christendom portrays Jesus as God. It means that they are one and the same entity. The Father barely rates a mention....yet Jesus spoke about him constantly. He wasn't talking about himself.

 

[cladking]

The points have not been addressed at all....they are merely waved away with comments like......"you don't understand science"...or "you don't know what you are talking about".....do you honestly think that answers the questions for genuine seekers of the truth?

We are all "believers", but we all have different beliefs. No one who understands science can rule out the possibility of a "First Cause" yet some are as certain there wasn't one as any of the most religious believe there was.

We build models of our beliefs and see all of reality in terms of these models. We can't see what exists outside of our models because that's how our minds work (now).

 

[Deeje]

I also wondered(like "skeptic thinker") why you keep regurgitating debunked rote learned creationists soundbites? Let's begin with the difference between a capitalized Theory(Scientific Theory), and a non capitalized theory(hunch, belief, idea, guess, hypothesis). A Scientific Theory is a fact-supported explanation of a natural phenomena, "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments". In other words, based on evidence not faith. Based on inductive/deductive reasoning, not by any top-down presuppositional biases. A natural phenomena, is any event that occurs in nature that is not created by man. It is any naturally occurring event(cause and effect), that obeys, and is consistent with the laws of physics.

Addressing the highlighted portion above.....
A "scientific theory" especially where macro-evolution is concerned, is an idea that science postulates and tries to support with "evidence".....yet what passes for that evidence is nothing more than educated guessing. The literature is full of 'might have's"....."could have's"....."this leads us to believe that...." I'm sorry but this is the language of speculation, NOT founded on "real" evidence but on "interpretation" of said evidence from very biased sources.

Your poor understanding of science is remarkable. If you have studied science, then science has failed you. Especially, if you believe that science " is based on nothing but assumptions, assertions and suggestions...". This assertion is not even rational. Do you really think that any Scientific Theory, is supported only by a body of suggestions, guesses, assertions, and assumptions? Do you think that any scientific methodology, would ignore things like evidence, facts, data, observations, experimental results, falsification, and replication? Do you think that the entire peer review oversight system, chooses not to scrutinize the evidence supporting any research? Do you really think this?

My "poor understanding of science" is the result of not swallowing everything they tell me as though they really know all about life on this planet. They can't even tell us how it started....so what does it matter if it changed or how much? All science can demonstrate is that adaptive change is possible...proven most famously with the Peppered Moth. It didn't evolve at all...it adapted to a change in the environment and when that change was rectified, the moths returned to their original color. Adaptation is not evolution. The moth still exists in its original form.

Because of their dedication and commitment to scientific pursuits, our society will continue to move forward, by solving the many real and practical problems that we(humanity) will all face in the future.

Well, now I am rolling on the floor laughing.....its because of science that the world we have right now is choking to death on its own stupidity and greed. It isn't interested in practical solutions...all it wants to do is pass the buck and sell out to the highest bidder. Where do you get the idea that science is noble when unscrupulous men use science as a means to line their own pockets?

Who invented the atom bomb? A window cleaner?

Who is responsible for the heinous weaponry now at the disposal of unstable regimes? A council worker?

Who is responsible for the emergence of superbugs now resistant to antibiotics because of over prescription.....garbage men?

Every product threatening the health and well being of all life on this planet can be laid at the feet of scientists.

I sincerely hope that our future will not become a religious version of the "Stepford Wives". Or worst, a religious Theocracy, where priest rule in the name of a God(s). Once the mind goes, our freedoms will soon follow.

The funny thing is, you have created that scenario in your own mind.....its not at all what the Creator has in store for mankind in the future. Think 'Garden of Eden'......that was what God had in mind for us, but unfortunately humans misused their free will, thinking that they were capable of handling their own affairs without their Creator.....and here we are. Could we have messed up the world any more?

If you believe in mutations, then you believe in macroevolution.

Mutations are almost always detrimental. So if you are assuming that all the good things in evolution came about by beneficial mutations, then the statistics are not in line with what science claims. Google beneficial mutations and see how many you come up with....then evaluate them on the scale of life altering changes for a minuscule percentage of the population.

 

[Deeje]

If you believe that more complex organisms evolve from less complex organisms, then you believe in macroevolution.

Actually I do not. I have not seen verifiable evidence that complex organisms necessarily evolve from less complex ones. I have seen it suggested however. Got something to back that up?

If you believe that you look more like your own siblings, than like the siblings of others, then you believe in macroevolution.

Sorry...what has heredity got to do with anything, except to prove that DNA produces variety even within the same gene pool.

If you believe that our genes determine our species, then you believe in macroevolution.

Our genes are programmed for reproduction of our own species. What do we see in nature....? We see only replication within species, programmed by instincts that prevent them from wanting to mate with any other.
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, butterflies produce caterpillars, which somehow know instinctively how to morph into butterflies to repeat the process, and have done so since the beginning of their existence.
How many random flukes does it take to explain the complexity of nature?

It would be pointless to point out all the genetic, chemical(oxygen markers), anatomical and physiological, cellular, radiological(isotope markers), fossil consistency, geological, and anthropological evidence supporting macroevolution and common descent. Especially, since not only would you not understand, but because of cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't care. Again, it's the children I feel sorry for.

Science creates smoke and mirrors to "prove" (or should I say "sell") their theory. Under the cloud of not being seen as educated or intelligent, most students (and even some teachers) won't question any of it because...well its just not worth the intimidation, or at worst, character assassination and loss of employment.

Other than being "fascinating", and tragic at the same time, this is not a thread to highlight and confirm your ignorance of science. That has truly been accomplished.

Has it? Funny how these threads get so many hits......one of my last ones got over 100,000. If it was a done deal as you assume, then why are people so interested in the arguments? Why are so many remaining on the fence about this? More people are turning away from evolution it seems to me.

Since you can't disprove even ONE scientific law, fact, Theory, or tenet, your credibility and integrity is at best questionable. Maybe you should limit your opinions only to those areas where evidence is unnecessary? Like religion. There are many other threads in this forum that don't involve science at all. Might I suggest that they might be more supportive of your views.

LOL....or maybe the science buffs here should quit trying to support a theory that has no real substantive evidence. Those who never produce anything but insults. How dare anyone question their religion!...or their gods!

I will never convince an atheist of anything and I will not even try, but there are many who read here but don't post on these forums. It is to these ones I offer my counter arguments. They are then equipped to read the evidence presented and make up their own minds....or at least do their own research. Many people read over the supposition in science articles, not noticing them....I don't.

Preaching to the converted is a waste of time.

What is annoying, is when people make extraordinary claims, and then avoid providing extraordinary evidence to support them.

You mean the way scientists do with macro-evolution? Amoebas to dinosaurs is an extraordinary claim with absolutely no substantive evidence to support it? There is lots of assumption and suggestion, but no real evidence. So is the pot calling the kettle black?

What is annoying is people who ignore the relevance of what degrees of certainty mean in science.

Amazing how science has to have disclaimers on ordinary words used by everyone else....how can certainty come in degrees?

What is annoying is when people claim that if science can't absolutely prove anything, then their belief is correct by default.

I think it just puts us on equal footing instead of science being up there on its self-made pedestal, looking down on everyone who doesn't accept everything they say....I believe we now have a level playing field. There are two "belief" systems and people can be free to investigate both on equal terms. An Intelligent Creator is not a fairy tale if you believe that all life evolved from a single cell that just popped into existence in some primordial soup one day, for no apparent reason. Where is the evidence for that?

What is annoying is listening to people talk about their beliefs, when they can spend more of their time discovering the true nature of their own reality. IMHO

The true nature of our reality is inextricably tied to its Maker. When you ditch him, you ditch everything that goes with him...including life itself and a future beyond the grave. Most people have an innate need to go on living. It is programmed into us......no one in good health and a decent quality of life "wants" to die. Death is as foreign to human nature today as it has always been.

I have a need to fulfill all my expectations to go on living, loving and learning for all eternity to come. I have only just begun my journey; only just begun to experience the wisdom that only comes with age, because I have been on the planet a long time.....but atheists reach the end of their lives with nothing to look forward to.....Life has no purpose except to leave behind their genes in the next generation.....trouble is, the gene pool is now a cess pool. We all know where that will lead.

 

[Deeje]

We are all "believers", but we all have different beliefs. No one who understands science can rule out the possibility of a "First Cause" yet some are as certain there wasn't one as any of the most religious believe there was.

We build models of our beliefs and see all of reality in terms of these models. We can't see what exists outside of our models because that's how our minds work (now).

Do you believe that God has a way to let us know what is true? I do....(John 6:44; John 6:65) From the Bible, I believe that God chooses us as much as we choose him.

The great "First Cause" of everything knows what he's doing. It is all outlined clearly in scripture.....we can believe it or not.
The Creator will not force himself on anyone, but he will reveal his will and purpose to those whom he has chosen to receive it. It leaves no room for doubt in their minds. If people have delusions of their own making.....then he will allow them to keep believing the lies because these ones have no love for the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)
That is what the Bible tells me.

 

[cladking]

Do you believe that God has a way to let us know what is true? I do....(John 6:44; John 6:65) From the Bible, I believe that God chooses us as much as we choose him.

The great "First Cause" of everything knows what he's doing. It is all outlined clearly in scripture.....we can believe it or not.
The Creator will not force himself on anyone, but he will reveal his will and purpose to those whom he has chosen to receive it. It leaves no room for doubt in their minds. If people have delusions of their own making.....then he will allow them to keep believing the lies because these ones have no love for the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)
That is what the Bible tells me.

If you are claiming there's a great deal of truth in the Bible I'm the last one who would deny it.

I often say that religion is a confusion of ancient science but the Bible is much less confused. Indeed, much of it can be literally true if properly interpreted.

I don't know if there were a "first cause" or not. It's far above my pay grade to know. I can imagine reality as it exists either way though there is a certain logic to a "Creator" (or perhaps Creators). What I do know is God gave us only consciousness/ reason/ logic (father/ son/ holy ghost) to learn about reality and life . I believe that "God" as we understand "Him" is knowledge/ understanding/ creation and this is a confusion of ancient science passed down by those who didn't want us to forget or to ever turn our backs on knowledge.

I believe we lost the way after the collapse of the tower and have been on a 4000 year detour.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Addressing the highlighted portion above.....
A "scientific theory" especially where macro-evolution is concerned, is an idea that science postulates and tries to support with "evidence".....yet what passes for that evidence is nothing more than educated guessing. The literature is full of 'might have's"....."could have's"....."this leads us to believe that...." I'm sorry but this is the language of speculation, NOT founded on "real" evidence but on "interpretation" of said evidence from very biased sources.



My "poor understanding of science" is the result of not swallowing everything they tell me as though they really know all about life on this planet. They can't even tell us how it started....so what does it matter if it changed or how much? All science can demonstrate is that adaptive change is possible...proven most famously with the Peppered Moth. It didn't evolve at all...it adapted to a change in the environment and when that change was rectified, the moths returned to their original color. Adaptation is not evolution. The moth still exists in its original form.



Well, now I am rolling on the floor laughing.....its because of science that the world we have right now is choking to death on its own stupidity and greed. It isn't interested in practical solutions...all it wants to do is pass the buck and sell out to the highest bidder. Where do you get the idea that science is noble when unscrupulous men use science as a means to line their own pockets?

Who invented the atom bomb? A window cleaner?

Who is responsible for the heinous weaponry now at the disposal of unstable regimes? A council worker?

Who is responsible for the emergence of superbugs now resistant to antibiotics because of over prescription.....garbage men?

Every product threatening the health and well being of all life on this planet can be laid at the feet of scientists.



The funny thing is, you have created that scenario in your own mind.....its not at all what the Creator has in store for mankind in the future. Think 'Garden of Eden'......that was what God had in mind for us, but unfortunately humans misused their free will, thinking that they were capable of handling their own affairs without their Creator.....and here we are. Could we have messed up the world any more?



Mutations are almost always detrimental. So if you are assuming that all the good things in evolution came about by beneficial mutations, then the statistics are not in line with what science claims. Google beneficial mutations and see how many you come up with....then evaluate them on the scale of life altering changes for a minuscule percentage of the population.

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


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.

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.". 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.

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. 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?

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?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Actually I do not. I have not seen verifiable evidence that complex organisms necessarily evolve from less complex ones. I have seen it suggested however. Got something to back that up?



Sorry...what has heredity got to do with anything, except to prove that DNA produces variety even within the same gene pool.



Our genes are programmed for reproduction of our own species. What do we see in nature....? We see only replication within species, programmed by instincts that prevent them from wanting to mate with any other.
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, butterflies produce caterpillars, which somehow know instinctively how to morph into butterflies to repeat the process, and have done so since the beginning of their existence.
How many random flukes does it take to explain the complexity of nature?



Science creates smoke and mirrors to "prove" (or should I say "sell") their theory. Under the cloud of not being seen as educated or intelligent, most students (and even some teachers) won't question any of it because...well its just not worth the intimidation, or at worst, character assassination and loss of employment.



Has it? Funny how these threads get so many hits......one of my last ones got over 100,000. If it was a done deal as you assume, then why are people so interested in the arguments? Why are so many remaining on the fence about this? More people are turning away from evolution it seems to me.

Has it? Funny how these threads get so many hits......one of my last ones got over 100,000. If it was a done deal as you assume, then why are people so interested in the arguments? Why are so many remaining on the fence about this? More people are turning away from evolution it seems to me.

LOL....or maybe the science buffs here should quit trying to support a theory that has no real substantive evidence. Those who never produce anything but insults. How dare anyone question their religion!...or their gods!

I will never convince an atheist of anything and I will not even try, but there are many who read here but don't post on these forums. It is to these ones I offer my counter arguments. They are then equipped to read the evidence presented and make up their own minds....or at least do their own research. Many people read over the supposition in science articles, not noticing them....I don't.

Preaching to the converted is a waste of time.



You mean the way scientists do with macro-evolution? Amoebas to dinosaurs is an extraordinary claim with absolutely no substantive evidence to support it? There is lots of assumption and suggestion, but no real evidence. So is the pot calling the kettle black?



Amazing how science has to have disclaimers on ordinary words used by everyone else....how can certainty come in degrees?



I think it just puts us on equal footing instead of science being up there on its self-made pedestal, looking down on everyone who doesn't accept everything they say....I believe we now have a level playing field. There are two "belief" systems and people can be free to investigate both on equal terms. An Intelligent Creator is not a fairy tale if you believe that all life evolved from a single cell that just popped into existence in some primordial soup one day, for no apparent reason. Where is the evidence for that?



The true nature of our reality is inextricably tied to its Maker. When you ditch him, you ditch everything that goes with him...including life itself and a future beyond the grave. Most people have an innate need to go on living. It is programmed into us......no one in good health and a decent quality of life "wants" to die. Death is as foreign to human nature today as it has always been.

I have a need to fulfill all my expectations to go on living, loving and learning for all eternity to come. I have only just begun my journey; only just begun to experience the wisdom that only comes with age, because I have been on the planet a long time.....but atheists reach the end of their lives with nothing to look forward to.....Life has no purpose except to leave behind their genes in the next generation.....trouble is, the gene pool is now a cess pool. We all know where that will lead.

Has it? Funny how these threads get so many hits......one of my last ones got over 100,000. If it was a done deal as you assume, then why are people so interested in the arguments? Why are so many remaining on the fence about this? More people are turning away from evolution it seems to me.

You attract the same attention that would be expected for someone who is hurt or ill. Pity and curiosity. If anyone says something that is irrational or extraordinary (10, 000 yo Universe, creation myths, a flat earth, miracles, the paranormal), they would also attract the same attention. They would always be asked to present evidence. At best you are just a curiosity, but as a source for enlightenment, I seriously doubt it. In the end you will run away, to avoid being buried under the same science they can no longer keep denying. Otherwise you will just be ignored. You are certainly not exceptional or nuance. You will certainly not be the last to find ego gratification through a need for attention. But in the end, you will go away, because the facts in certainty, will always be more important than a belief in certainty. This does not apply to the true religious fanatics and fundamentalists.

Actually I do not. I have not seen verifiable evidence that complex organisms necessarily evolve from less complex ones. I have seen it suggested however. Got something to back that up?

So you believe that we are still single-celled organisms, that children run before they can crawl, that a tree does not come from a single seed, that the stages of human embryology is bypassed, that we can composed symphonies without learning musical notes first, or that cells do not make tissues, organs, and organ systems? This pattern in evolution is consistent and easily observable to anyone with their eyes open. Try growing a plant and see what I mean. Everything that exists has evolved, or will become extinct.

If you believe that our phenotype(observable characteristics) is more closely related to our parents than to someone else's parents, then you must agree that humans are more closely related(genetically) to apes than to horses. And, more closely related to horses than to birds. And, more closely related to birds than to insects. Are you now seeing the value of inductive reasoning? Or, is having attention more important than the having the truth?

Do you have any idea why dogs do not mate with cats, birds, or pigs? The origin of new species is about the 1000's of small changes that occur over time within the population. It is the results of an accumulation of these small changes that produce new species. Although closely related species can still mate, their offspring's are not always guaranteed. It all boils down to the genetic compatibility of the different species. When the haploid gametes cells join to share their genetic information, if the sites along the chromosomes are not compatible, the zygote won't form and will be aborted. At any stage during development, if there are not enough compatible sites along the chromosome to join, the embryo will be aborted. This is not only intuitive and self-evident, it is just common sense. It would be like questioning why a baby does not become a mature adult in 6 months. It would be ludicrous and absurd to think otherwise.

Why would any student, teacher, or rational thinker question something that they can test for themselves? Especially, something that is intuitively rational, falsifiable, repeatable, and easily testable? Is it gullible to agree that gravity is real? Is it gullible to believe why the lights go on, or why the car moves? Is it also gullible to accept scientific explanations that you know are true? Or, do you just like making sweeping generalization about science, that you so far can't back up? Or, do to only dismiss any science, that is in direct contradiction with your own beliefs? How do we test that "God did it all"? We can't, can we? So what are you replacing science with? God?

At least you have admitted that you are just another self-appoint protectorate of the gospel, who only wants to enslave people in an imaginary security blanket, by creating cognitive dissonance, destroying their individuality, their ability to excel, their innocence, and their free will. There is nothing equal about science and religion. Science uses a methodology, religion uses belief only. Science uses facts, religion uses faith only. Once believers are asked to present the facts, the argument is over. As soon as you take science out of the equation, the religious argument dies.

You mean the way scientists do with macro-evolution? Amoebas to dinosaurs is an extraordinary claim with absolutely no substantive evidence to support it? There is lots of assumption and suggestion, but no real evidence. So is the pot calling the kettle black?

These are just more creationist talking point, that have all been debunked. What evidence do you want? Do you want scientist to present to you the fossilized evidence of the first pre-protozoa, to every species that have ever lived on the planet? This includes showing every microscopic evolutionary change, including the exact moment of speciation? How about lining up the remains of every species, and point to where every species began to branch out. Of course this would be impossible, since nature is not that obliging, and the entire planet would be 100 miles deep in fossilized remains. Since you know this, you simply claim that the evidence is incomplete or just guesstimates. All intellectually dishonest and deceptive, since you don't have to sit through the whole game to see the final score. It is not just one piece of evidence that scientists look at, but the total convergence of evidence from different scientific disciplines. But none of this matters to a totally closed mind, who parrot only debunked creationist's talking points.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The true nature of our reality is inextricably tied to its Maker

The true nature of our reality, is tied to the 4 fundamental forces in nature, time, and space, and not God. Unless you are labelling all these things as God.

Science creates smoke and mirrors to "prove" (or should I say "sell") their theory. Under the cloud of not being seen as educated or intelligent, most students (and even some teachers) won't question any of it because...well its just not worth the intimidation, or at worst, character assassination and loss of employment.

Just more silly, poorly thought out creationist talking points. Science proves nothing, no matter how many times we say it. If a scientist could demonstrate the existence of an unknown force or property, he would be respected and idolized by his peers, not ostracized and ridiculed. If he submitted his research for peer review, with "already reviewed by God", eyebrows maybe raised before the review. I also don't see many Atheist here worried about character assassination and ridicule. Unless, they have a reason to be worried.

I have a need to fulfill all my expectations to go on living, loving and learning for all eternity to come. I have only just begun my journey; only just begun to experience the wisdom that only comes with age, because I have been on the planet a long time.....but atheists reach the end of their lives with nothing to look forward to.....Life has no purpose except to leave behind their genes in the next generation.....trouble is, the gene pool is now a cess pool. We all know where that will lead

Whether you are an Atheist or not, if you have children, you will leave behind your genetic materials. There is only two objective purpose in life. To survive long enough to procreate. And, if your environment is hostile, to become immortal, and if the environment is bountiful, to die. Everything else should be worth dying for. Children, love, freedom, innocence, discovery, friendships, walkabouts, and service, are some of the things that make life precious and important. Religious servitude, because of a fictitious sin, by a make-believe story, about an all powerful life giver, that promises everlasting life? The word "gullible" is the first word that comes to mind. Why can't we both live the same life without religion. We have all experienced death before, so we all know what it is like, and that there is no heaven or hell.

You may feel this way about your life, but don't put science and others down that clearly would never share your views. Preaching to Atheist about your beliefs, is like me trying to convince you that the tooth fairy exists. What you choose to believe is totally up to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You attract the same attention that would be expected for someone who is hurt or ill. Pity and curiosity. If anyone says something that is irrational or extraordinary (10, 000 yo Universe, creation myths, a flat earth, miracles, the paranormal), they would also attract the same attention. They would always be asked to present evidence. At best you are just a curiosity, but as a source for enlightenment, I seriously doubt it. In the end you will run away, to avoid being buried under the same science they can no longer keep denying. Otherwise you will just be ignored. You are certainly not exceptional or nuance. You will certainly not be the last to find ego gratification through a need for attention. But in the end, you will go away, because the facts in certainty, will always be more important than a belief in certainty. This does not apply to the true religious fanatics and fundamentalists.



So you believe that we are still single-celled organisms, that children run before they can crawl, that a tree does not come from a single seed, that the stages of human embryology is bypassed, that we can composed symphonies without learning musical notes first, or that cells do not make tissues, organs, and organ systems? This pattern in evolution is consistent and easily observable to anyone with their eyes open. Try growing a plant and see what I mean. Everything that exists has evolved, or will become extinct.

If you believe that our phenotype(observable characteristics) is more closely related to our parents than to someone else's parents, then you must agree that humans are more closely related(genetically) to apes than to horses. And, more closely related to horses than to birds. And, more closely related to birds than to insects. Are you now seeing the value of inductive reasoning? Or, is having attention more important than the having the truth?

Do you have any idea why dogs do not mate with cats, birds, or pigs? The origin of new species is about the 1000's of small changes that occur over time within the population. It is the results of an accumulation of these small changes that produce new species. Although closely related species can still mate, their offspring's are not always guaranteed. It all boils down to the genetic compatibility of the different species. When the haploid gametes cells join to share their genetic information, if the sites along the chromosomes are not compatible, the zygote won't form and will be aborted. At any stage during development, if there are not enough compatible sites along the chromosome to join, the embryo will be aborted. This is not only intuitive and self-evident, it is just common sense. It would be like questioning why a baby does not become a mature adult in 6 months. It would be ludicrous and absurd to think otherwise.

Why would any student, teacher, or rational thinker question something that they can test for themselves? Especially, something that is intuitively rational, falsifiable, repeatable, and easily testable? Is it gullible to agree that gravity is real? Is it gullible to believe why the lights go on, or why the car moves? Is it also gullible to accept scientific explanations that you know are true? Or, do you just like making sweeping generalization about science, that you so far can't back up? Or, do to only dismiss any science, that is in direct contradiction with your own beliefs? How do we test that "God did it all"? We can't, can we? So what are you replacing science with? God?

At least you have admitted that you are just another self-appoint protectorate of the gospel, who only wants to enslave people in an imaginary security blanket, by creating cognitive dissonance, destroying their individuality, their ability to excel, their innocence, and their free will. There is nothing equal about science and religion. Science uses a methodology, religion uses belief only. Science uses facts, religion uses faith only. Once believers are asked to present the facts, the argument is over. As soon as you take science out of the equation, the religious argument dies.



These are just more creationist talking point, that have all been debunked. What evidence do you want? Do you want scientist to present to you the fossilized evidence of the first pre-protozoa, to every species that have ever lived on the planet? This includes showing every microscopic evolutionary change, including the exact moment of speciation? How about lining up the remains of every species, and point to where every species began to branch out. Of course this would be impossible, since nature is not that obliging, and the entire planet would be 100 miles deep in fossilized remains. Since you know this, you simply claim that the evidence is incomplete or just guesstimates. All intellectually dishonest and deceptive, since you don't have to sit through the whole game to see the final score. It is not just one piece of evidence that scientists look at, but the total convergence of evidence from different scientific disciplines. But none of this matters to a totally closed mind, who parrot only debunked creationist's talking points.

Can you imagine how much bigger women would have to be in order to give birth to fully grown adults that did not go through simpler stages of development. Whooo!

 

[ecco]

Yes, I did, and do. He thought there was a “superior reasoning power” behind it all.

“reasoning” ...... get it?

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.

 

[ecco]

The difficulties are NOT on the level of the science. The difficulties are at the level of *philosophy*. And, truthfully, if you attempt to use classical notions to understand quantum phenomena (like most philosophers do), then you will get yourself into all sorts of trouble, The classical notions are *wrong* as has been shown by QM itself.

Even worse than philosophers using classical notions to understand quantum phenomena, are those wannabe philosophers who toss in little bits of QM to explain their woo.

An example: Beyond quarks everything is energy. The atoms and neurons in brains are, essentially, just energy. Stars are energy. Therefore stars can communicate just like two people with brains.