Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
....the denial that freedom is real and relevant in the universe is more likely associated to mental disease.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .
- Thread starter Jared Jammer
- Start date
....the denial that freedom is real and relevant in the universe is more likely associated to mental disease.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
When are you going to start making sense? I'm genuinely curious.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Yes I have considered that I was missing something and then I checked the "evidence" again and found that evolutionists are interpreting their findings to suit their own beliefs. There is nothing in the fossil record that proves that one "kind" of living thing transformed into another completely different "kind" of living thing.
It is assumed by scientists that evolution occurred but there is no real evidence to demonstrate that it took place as the scientists likes to assume it does. I am yet to be shown any real evidence for the slow and gradual evolutionary process that is claimed for all living things. I see illustrations of what some people "think" "might have" happened, but illustrations and computer imagery are from someone's imagination. Now if you have something that's real instead of something that requires interpretation, I'm all ears.
"Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds.......Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth..........Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds........Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1)
That about sums it up. The divisions of the various "kinds" seem to be clearly stated in the order in which they came into being......plants did not become animals. Birds did not become fish. Animals did not become humans. All were created to be what they are.
If you have some evidence that the fossil record proves that this order of appearance is wrong, then by all means let's see it.
You're still getting things the wrong way around - the belief in evolution came by interpreting the evidence.
How would you explain a fossil record that shows changing forms over the aeons? Just some of God's playthings that died out, so he created new ones (surprisingly similar, intermediate forms between what came before and went after)?
If you really think the idea of evolution is wrong, provide a better one that explains what we can actually see.
Ain't no definition of what a "kind" is there.
Can you point to where anyone has said birds became fish or plants became animals? Isn't that fallacy a reductio ad absurdum
Stop filling your posts with stupidity, and people might start to take you seriously.
What.. you mean like something that could show there were "creeping animals of the ground", or other wild animals for millions of years before there were domestic animals?
If you can't see that, then you *really* ain't looking.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Well, for starters, the earliest known land animals pre-date the earliest known birds by over two-hundred million years:
Pneumodesmus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aurornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McBell
Unbound
Who, other than lying creationists and yourself, has made the claim that birds become fish or plants become animals?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is in the proposed randomness of mutations that birds are predicted to become fish, and anything else.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Where has evolution ever predicted that birds can become fish?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You just don't get it. I am left to suspect one of three causes, perhaps you are ignorant of the actual data, perhaps you are too stupid to understand it or perhaps you've been brainwashed by your cult. I reach this conclusion based on several items. First is the fact that evolution in not belief based but data based, as opposed to creation that has not supporting data but only belief. Second is that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are singularly unqualified to interpret evolution's supporting evidence. Thirdly is you're bizarre concept of "kinds" a concept that you can not even begin to define so that it may be rationally discussed.
15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS - A resource from Nature for those wishing to spread awareness of evidence for evolution by natural selection - Henry Gee, Rory Howlett and Philip Campbell (Henry Gee is a senior editor for Nature; Rory Howlett is a consultant editor forNature; Philip Campbell is editor-in-chief of Nature)
Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact, in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact. Given that the concepts and realities of Darwinian evolution are still challenged, albeit rarely by biologists, a succinct briefing on why evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle is useful for people to have to hand. We offer here 15 examples published by
Nature over the past decade or so to illustrate the breadth, depth and power of evolutionary thinking. We are happy to offer this resource freely and encourage its free dissemination.
Gems from the fossil record
1 Land-living ancestors of whales
2 From water to land
3 The origin of feathers
4 The evolutionary history of teeth
5 The origin of the vertebrate skeleton
Gems from habitats
6 Natural selection in speciation
7 Natural selection in lizards
8 A case of co-evolution
9 Differential dispersal in wild birds
10 Selective survival in wild guppies
11 Evolutionary history matters
Gems from molecular processes
12 Darwin’s Galapagos finches
13 Microevolution meets macroevolution
14 Toxin resistance in snakes and clams
15 Variation versus stability
Details may be found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
Failure to falsify any one of these items signals defeat of your point of view, I challenge you to falsify just one.
You fail miserably. I requested a definition and you provide bible quotes but no definitions. Here's two examples (from U.C. Berkeley, my Alma Mater) of definitions that you might work from:
Defining a species
A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.
That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually
Biological Species Concept
The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.
Appearance isn’t everything
- Organisms may appear to be alike and be different species. For example, Western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) and Eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna) look almost identical to one another, yet do not interbreed with each other—thus, they are separate species according to this definition.
The Western meadowlark (left) and the Eastern meadowlark (right) appear to be identical, and their ranges overlap, but their distinct songs prevent interbreeding.
- Organisms may look different and yet be the same species. For example, look at these ants. You might think that they are distantly related species. In fact, they are sisters—two ants of the species Pheidole barbata, fulfilling different roles in the same colony.
So what is a "kind" anyway?
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No, it is not, except in your overtaxed imagination.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I really don't understand where you're coming from with this. Are you under the impression that one day a bunch of bored scientists were just sitting around somewhere trying to come up with new ideas and just went "hey, how about we push the idea that all living creatures on earth evolve and change over time! That sounds like a good one. That'll really stir up those religious folks! Well we have no evidence but so what, I like the idea!" And then for the next 150+ years they went out in search of evidence to confirm their crazy idea to foist it on the world?
Rather than what actually happened where scientific-minded people were actually observing nature and noticing that everything seems to evolve and change over time? Then a whole bunch of independent groups of scientists all over the world researched and investigated and observed for the next couple of centuries and realized that all the evidence converged on the apparent fact that all things evolve and change over time and that all things are related to each other. Not only that but as newer technology and fields of study opened up, nobody could seem to find any evidence that didn't point to everything evolving and changing over time and being related to everything else.
How do you think science works, exactly?
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Or perhaps you are so busy looking down your nose that you fail to recognize what is right under it.
Well, that is not exactly true. Evolution is based on interpretation of data. That interpretation can be skewed by the scientists' own bias. Just as interpretation of the Bible can be skewed the same way to suit someone's pre-conceived notions.
Define "qualified". If by that term you mean educated in a particular field of science, then you are right....I am "unqualified". But I don't think I need some clever human to tell me what I see with my own eyes. I might not have the same qualifications as your learned self, but I am not stupid.
Nature speaks louder than science. I googled the metamorphosis of a Monarch Butterfly yesterday and watched in amazement how this beautifully decorated caterpillar transformed into an equally beautiful butterfly.....according to science, this incredible process all just happened by random accidental mutations......seriously?
This next one is talking about the refraction of light that creates the iridescence of the blue wings of a Morpho Butterfly.
To mention such exquisite design and evolution in the same sentence is a travesty.
The Creator does not define "kinds" to your satisfaction....that is a shame.
I don't need a definition to enjoy creation or give praise to the designer of all these "kinds" of creatures.
All that beauty is wasted on those creatures except for mating purposes. Humans on the other hand have the unique ability to appreciate beauty for its own sake. This is part of being made in the image of the Creator. We like to look at beautiful things. What survival advantage is there in that? I don't see any animals sitting and admiring the scenery...do you?
"Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years"....yes they do, because they are as brainwashed as they believe we are. By whom? By others who hold the same beliefs as they do.
Pot calling the kettle black?
"They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact...." Yes, but if they have built on a weak foundation, there is danger that the whole building will collapse. I believe it will. It is not as secure as they want us to believe it is.
The problem lies in man's desire to free himself from obligation to a Creator. Darwin started men thinking in a certain direction, at a time when religion had become somewhat of a joke. Learned men were seeking a more educated approach to the natural world. Darwin himself acknowledged the problems associated with his theory. Men of science have been trying to support it ever since. But the data they have is open to interpretation. Supporters of evolution will read it only one way.
I challenge you to prove that the interpretation of the scientists is valid, beyond dispute. We both know that no one can "prove" anything. Science likes to present macro-evolution as fact...but we know it isn't.
There was no one around to document how things happened. So educated guessing is as close as science can get.
You may deny this, but we know that it is pure speculation based on what scientists "think" " might have" happened. That is what they say in every instance.
They do not know for a "fact" that it took place that way at all.
I requested a definition and you provide bible quotes but no definitions. Here's two examples (from U.C. Berkeley, my Alma Mater) of definitions that you might work from:
Defining a species
A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.
That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually
Biological Species Concept
The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.
Appearance isn’t everything
- Organisms may appear to be alike and be different species. For example, Western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) and Eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna) look almost identical to one another, yet do not interbreed with each other—thus, they are separate species according to this definition.
The Western meadowlark (left) and the Eastern meadowlark (right) appear to be identical, and their ranges overlap, but their distinct songs prevent interbreeding.
- Organisms may look different and yet be the same species. For example, look at these ants. You might think that they are distantly related species. In fact, they are sisters—two ants of the species Pheidole barbata, fulfilling different roles in the same colony.
So what is a "kind" anyway?
A "kind" is what the Creator says it is. Separate kinds of creatures that will never change into something that they are not designed to be.
Your examples here are classic. The spiders are still spiders, albeit adapted in very attractive colors...the birds are still birds. I guess we can all find another human who is very like us in physical features but totally unrelated......the ants are designed for different roles within the colony, but they are all ants. This demonstrates "kinds" to my way of thinking.
Nothing you presented is convincing.
No, but it is the best explanation for what has been observed.
Come up with a better explanation, and science will change its view. That's all you've got to do: come up with something that explains fossils, genes, anatomy etc. better than the evolutionary explanation and I'll be there to cheer as you're awarded your Nobel prize. But it will have to be a better explanation, and will probably require an understanding of what you're talking about, so you might have some learning to do.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
What those scientists observed back then, was adaptation. They ended up calling it "micro-evolution"......Then when they mentioned "macro-evolution" it sounded for all the world like it must have been the same process, only taken over a much longer period of time. The trouble is, the evidence they have for macro-evolution is based solely on conjecture....and solely on adaptation within species for evidence. The macro-evolutionary process is not "fact" at all...it is supposition based on what scientists "think" "might have happened" ....this is what they actually say. This is not the language of fact. Some have tried to justify the language...but it is what it is. It is an admission that they don't have all the answers. In fact they have no more solid proof for macro-evolution than we have for intelligent design. Both are belief systems based on what people want to believe.
Science is beneficial when it is used for the good of mankind, but it is also responsible for a lot of evil uses. Messing with the stuff of life, coupled with the power of the human ego, science is going where it ought not. Experimenting with genetics can sometimes help to solve a few medical problems but when it is done in other areas purely for profit, it is immoral.
Much of what science had produced has brought this planet to the brink of irrevocably drowning in its own artificially produced waste. Nature is genius at recycling...science isn't. This planet operated quite brilliantly for a long time without the intervention of science. But now in such a short space of time, we have technology that threatens our very existence.
Science created weapons of mass destruction...it created the substances that are polluting the earth, the water and the skies. Then there are the nuclear power plants......Science has created monsters that generate dangerous waste that it cannot destroy. How clever......and how short sighted.
For all the good accomplished, there is an equal amount of what they consider merely collateral damage.
The planet ultimately pays for what science dreams up.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I will give the greatest designer in existence all the accolades. He is the best "explanation" there is. He has the power and the expertise to produce all you see and more. No mindless process can possibly explain the myriad life forms on this planet and their role in its perfect ecology. Perfectly designed systems and symbiosis do not just "happen". They are designed to not only co-exist, but to enhance the existence of other beings and the planet as a whole.
Humans have messed that up...big time.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Except there's not one shred of objective evidence to support this, which is not to go so far as to say it couldn't have happened. Just because something may change doesn't mean that a deity did it.
And let me just point out just how fruitless the above argument is. Let's say that somehow miraculously someone proved that our universe was made by a deity or deities. So, here's my question: So what? That info and $5 can maybe get you a small coffee at Starbucks. Nothing else can be established by this.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What is the point of this transparent con-trick? Everyone knows you are lying, so what is the point of your activity here? The only possibility I can think of that makes sense is that you are a person who hates JW's and is trying to make them look like fourth rate con-artists.Or perhaps you are so busy looking down your nose that you fail to recognize what is right under it.
Well, that is not exactly true. Evolution is based on interpretation of data. That interpretation can be skewed by the scientists' own bias. Just as interpretation of the Bible can be skewed the same way to suit someone's pre-conceived notions.
Define "qualified". If by that term you mean educated in a particular field of science, then you are right....I am "unqualified". But I don't think I need some clever human to tell me what I see with my own eyes. I might not have the same qualifications as your learned self, but I am not stupid.
Nature speaks louder than science. I googled the metamorphosis of a Monarch Butterfly yesterday and watched in amazement how this beautifully decorated caterpillar transformed into an equally beautiful butterfly.....according to science, this incredible process all just happened by random accidental mutations......seriously?
This next one is talking about the refraction of light that creates the iridescence of the blue wings of a Morpho Butterfly.
To mention such exquisite design and evolution in the same sentence is a travesty.
The Creator does not define "kinds" to your satisfaction....that is a shame.
I don't need a definition to enjoy creation or give praise to the designer of all these "kinds" of creatures.
All that beauty is wasted on those creatures except for mating purposes. Humans on the other hand have the unique ability to appreciate beauty for its own sake. This is part of being made in the image of the Creator. We like to look at beautiful things. What survival advantage is there in that? I don't see any animals sitting and admiring the scenery...do you?
"Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years"....yes they do, because they are as brainwashed as they believe we are. By whom? By others who hold the same beliefs as they do.
Pot calling the kettle black?
"They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact...." Yes, but if they have built on a weak foundation, there is danger that the whole building will collapse. I believe it will. It is not as secure as they want us to believe it is.
The problem lies in man's desire to free himself from obligation to a Creator. Darwin started men thinking in a certain direction, at a time when religion had become somewhat of a joke. Learned men were seeking a more educated approach to the natural world. Darwin himself acknowledged the problems associated with his theory. Men of science have been trying to support it ever since. But the data they have is open to interpretation. Supporters of evolution will read it only one way.
I challenge you to prove that the interpretation of the scientists is valid, beyond dispute. We both know that no one can "prove" anything. Science likes to present macro-evolution as fact...but we know it isn't.
There was no one around to document how things happened. So educated guessing is as close as science can get.
You may deny this, but we know that it is pure speculation based on what scientists "think" " might have" happened. That is what they say in every instance.
They do not know for a "fact" that it took place that way at all.
A "kind" is what the Creator says it is. Separate kinds of creatures that will never change into something that they are not designed to be.
Your examples here are classic. The spiders are still spiders, albeit adapted in very attractive colors...the birds are still birds. I guess we can all find another human who is very like us in physical features but totally unrelated......the ants are designed for different roles within the colony, but they are all ants. This demonstrates "kinds" to my way of thinking.
Nothing you presented is convincing.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Except your distinction is artificial. Speciation is observed. There is no refutation of that. Macro evolution is a concept that with that has been observed. However, you are bending terms. The "macro evolution" which you are suggesting is not supported is better described by a change in genus. While evolution certainly retains questions that all life is related through common ancestry is not really disputed.
I agree that science has had "collateral damage" but so too has religion. I fail to see any relevance in either of these facts.
At the root of your argument is the underlying assertion that life is too complex for evolution to have occurred without a designer. Evolutionary theory addresses this. Evolutionary theory provides an explanation for the possibility that all life is the result of natural processes. So really your claim is more along the lines that you do not see evidence that corroborates this claim. People have provided many links of evidence based on fossils, paleontology, etc that all evidence this theory. But you say, it is not enough, it does not prove for a fact, what happened and how it happened. While you have an admitted bias and lack of ability to understand evolutionary theory, you still hold that it is unacceptable.
So evolution is a theory, tested, evidence, supported, and accepted by the scientific community (regardless of personal religious affiliation). This theory viably explains the origin of life as we know it. This complex field of scientific study has contributed to knowledge in other scientific fields, and has spawned subfields.
Regardless of whether this theory is right or flawed, there is little room to deny its viability. Yet, you do. So, the question is...Why? Surely, you can see your adamant refusal as clinging to a particular view?
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Family....genus...species. This is what is observed. There is not one dot of evidence that is not speculation about what happens either inside or outside of these terms.
Many species of birds, animals and insects exist as separate kinds within a family of creatures. One did not evolve from another. They have stayed within their "kinds" since creation. I have not seen any credible evidence that whales were once land dwelling animals. Or that amphibious creatures are of necessity a transitional form of life between land dwelling creatures and sea creatures. It is all assumed, based on pre-conceived ideas.
Just reminding those who view science as some kind of infallible religion, that science isn't as smart as it claims to be. In fact it does things that are downright shortsighted and stupid at times....and we all end up paying for it.
Define "natural processes"....define "nature". These are terms designed to make people believe that "nature" itself is a some kind of masterful designer.......it isn't. Any more than a computer could be presented to you as a product of random chance. Could it exist without someone to design and manufacture all its components? And someone to put those components in just the right order? Could it function without the expertise of a trained programmer providing it with detailed instructions on all its operations. Would it work without a power source?
Explain to me how the complex human brain can exist as a product of random mutations?
Science has barely scratched the surface when it come to understanding the workings and capacity of our brain and yet we only use a fraction of its capacity. How many living things function perfectly well without one? How do these creatures know how to function without a brain?
How do creatures without ability to think outside of now, know to gather food and store it for their preservation through winter?
How do you explain instinct? How does an animal evolve instinct without 'someone' to program that behavior?
How do birds know how to build a nest specific to their species when they never got to see their parents build one?
Why does a predatory animal that kills the young of other species, care tenderly for her own?
How do birds and butterflies know how to migrate to places they have never been?
I cannot see how evolution can possibly answer those questions. The existence of an intelligent Creator does.
Oh I understand what science claims...but I have seen no proof. I see a lot of people mentioning credentials and studies and experiments but they are all undertaken by those who already support the theory. You don't see room for bias there? You think there is no fraud in science? All their conclusions are based on what they want to see in their "evidence".
Yes...a "theory" tested and supported by examination of said "evidence" by those in the scientific community who all hold it to be a foregone conclusion. Sorry, but that is not a recipe for the telling of the whole truth.
Religious affiliations are pretty meaningless in a field that mocks creation. Who wants to look like the dummy amongst their peers? Peer pressure affects adults too you know.
"Viably" to whom? It explains nothing viably to me. It requires stretches to my imagination that creation does not.
So? All science is, is the study of creation. It examines what is already here in its own limited way. The more science knows, the more it is reminded of what is still to know....so how can you possibly have confidence in its limited conclusions?
No actually, I see you evolutionists clinging to a view that requires as much imagination as you think we have.
You can't prove that macro-evolution ever took place....and we can't produce a Creator for you to prove that he is the designer of all you study.
The irresistible force banging heads with the immovable object.
One day we will know for sure.