How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Astrophile]

Meantime there is absolutely no fossil that evidences fish morphing (I mean evolving) to be land dwelling animals. This does not mean that I do not think there are fossils that have been discovered like Tiktaalik, but again -- there is nothing to show that water dwellers actually became land dwellers, especially in the "little increments." As far as the rest of your post (and query), I will answer that in another post.

If you Google on 'evolution of fish to tetrapods' you will find about 1.4 million links. You should read some of them before you say that 'there is nothing to show that water dwellers actually became land dwellers'.

 

[Astrophile]

Again...from the "evidence," and I appreciate your consideration, bird beaks growing smaller or larger or things like that...they still remain...birds.

Fish evolving into tetrapods or things like that ... they still remain ... vertebrates.

 

[Astrophile]

?? "There is no evidence he did not" .. .. what on Gods green earth are you talking about which this brutal fallacy .. you have no evidence the planet orbiting the star Alpha Century is not made of Green cheese .. but that does not make it true.

Actually, we have. There are no confirmed planets orbiting the main components of alpha Centauri (note the spelling), but Proxima Centauri has two confirmed planets (Proxima Cen b and d). The density of cheese is about 1.0 g/cm³, whereas Proxima's planets have densities of about 4.0 and 2.7 g/cm³. Therefore these planets are not made of cheese. QED.

 

[YoursTrue]

This sentence I do understand

Excellent!

 

[YoursTrue]

Fish evolving into tetrapods or things like that ... they still remain ... vertebrates.

Alrighty...

 

[YoursTrue]

Alrighty...

That's obviously what is thought that they evolved...

 

[John53]

That's obviously what is thought that they evolved...

They evolved an alrighty???

 

[gnostic]

Why not to mention another, one has ignored, please, right??
Another one is G-d created via evolution , right,please?

To do science, a scientist has to formulate a model that explains and predicts, what has being “observed”. This model, has to be tested, through more observations. These observations can either by experiments being performed in a lab, or by finding evidence in the field (thus fieldwork, instead of lab work for experiments).

If God created anything, whether it be naturally through Abiogenesis followed by Evolution, or by supernatural miracles that defied the nat laws, this God is nowhere to be seen. All you are doing is still conjecturing and asserting God into science, when God cannot be observed.

You are forgetting sciences are all about testable OBSERVATIONS - “before” writing the model (eg preliminary observations or preliminary evidence), and after writing the model where it needs to be tested.

If you are conjecturing that God play a part in evolution, then God has to be observed, you would evidence for God’s own existence, but god is nowhere to be seen. No one has observed God doing anything.

If you are going to explain anything in science, then they will require physical evidence that can be observed, and only observations and tests can verify or refute a model (eg hypothesis).

 

[gnostic]

You're not really saying that none of the Bible writers wrote in symbolic references, are you? Take into account at least one point where the book of Daniel describes the world powers as a goat and a four-headed winged leopard.

And there lies the absurdity of any religion, where anything and everything is possible through the use of symbols.

Look at Ezekiel 1, where the four-living creatures or angels or cherubs, have four wings, and four faces, that of lion, eagle, ox and man, and their feet were that of “calf’s foot”. Symbol for sure, as place a lot of importance to the number “four”. But if you were to take this chapter literally, then you would have absurd image of some type of monster that made of fire.

The problem with using symbols, is that they can often be many interpretations, and finding the correct interpretation is often a fool’s errand.

 

[Valjean]

You are positing nothing and I am positing a being who has shown Himself in history according to many people.

King Arthur and Hercules showed themselves in history according to many people. Hearsay and folklore aren't evidence.

Evidence for evolution does not point to "no designer", that is a faith based position.

That is an easily observed, reproducible mechanism. There's no faith involved.

You are being confused now. It is not me who first came up with the idea of "need". It is atheist who say there is "no need",,,,,,,,,,,, and using your idea, that would be stronger than saying there is no OPTION or POSSIBILITY. Are you saying that there is no "option" or "possibility" of a designer? That is a strong statement and is a statement of faith.

No. Given that natural selection works automatically with no planning needed, no added "causes" are needed. Evolution is not based on faith, and your "designer" is an unneeded special pleading.

Actually I would say that it is you who has the argument from ignorance. You are saying that there is lack of evidence for a designer so that means there is no designer.

No. Lack of evidence means the possibility is at the same confidence level as graviton pixies or transdimentional beavers. Reasonably, things are not considered just because they are possible. There would be endless possibilities to consider. Unless there's either evidence or need for an extra factor, none is even reasonably considered.

And let's not forget that you are willfully ignoring the idea that this designer could be spirit, uncreated, not a detectable part of the universe.

So he's be indistinguishable from a nonexistent designer....
Why this desperate need to invent completely unevidenced, extraneous 'causes'? The invisible designer could just as well be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And let's not forget the fact that you and science do not know if a designer changed the environments for the system to work or initially designed the whole evolution system.
Science acknowledges this but you have a position of faith, a belief that there is no designer and go beyond what science says, even if you pretend to be the one who is on the side of science.

You're inventing scenarios out of whole cloth, completely unevidenced.
A conclusion of non-existence in the absence of evidence is not a position of faith. It's the default position of reason.

No, I just believe that there is a designer. I am not arguing that there is definitely a designer.
You claim there is no need, so demonstrate how you conclude that if you want or just stick to your position of faith, that there is no designer.

We've explained it a dozen times. If there's a well-evidenced, sufficient mechanism already existing, there's no need to invent extra mechanisms -- or agents. An extra mechanism, especially an unevidenced one, is simply not needed. It's a special pleading.

Arguments from ignorance are probably common with people who are arguing that God definitely is needed or definitely is not needed.
I have faith that God did it, you have faith that there is no need for a God, but seem to want to make it something that only I need to justify by argument and that you do not. But if you are the one making the positive claim, that there is no need for a designer, then you should show it to be true.

The positive claim is demonstrated by the alternative sufficient cause.
Your faith, ie: unwarranted unevidenced, and unneeded belief in magic, is epistemically worthless.

 

[YoursTrue]

They evolved an alrighty???

Yup, if you say so. Have a good one...as you look forward or not to your descendants evolving...

 

[Valjean]

Are you trying to say that a philosophical acceptance of empiricism only in your search for what is true, and rejecting the possibility that other forms of evidence could be true, is not an argument from incredulity,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or more accurately, a way of life based on incredulity?

The 'other forms' are not evidence. You've made up your own epistemically invalid definition of evidence, and are using it as a straw man.

 

[YoursTrue]

And there lies the absurdity of any religion, where anything and everything is possible through the use of symbols.

Look at Ezekiel 1, where the four-living creatures or angels or cherubs, have four wings, and four faces, that of lion, eagle, ox and man, and their feet were that of “calf’s foot”. Symbol for sure, as place a lot of importance to the number “four”. But if you were to take this chapter literally, then you would have absurd image of some type of monster that made of fire.

The problem with using symbols, is that they can often be many interpretations, and finding the correct interpretation is often a fool’s errand.

That is correct. But to say (as someone did here) that everything is literal in the Bible is simply not true. So thank you for your observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct. But to say (as someone did here) that everything is literal in the Bible is simply not true. So thank you for your observation.

Who made that claim? It would have had to have been a fundamentalist Christian. I keep pointing out how if God is real and does not lie then Genesis cannot be read literally.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who made that claim? It would have had to have been a fundamentalist Christian. I keep pointing out how if God is real and does not lie then Genesis cannot be read literally.

Ask @shunyadragon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ask @shunyadragon.

Oh, my mistake. I misread your post. Yes, shunyadragon was correct. There are all sorts of things in the Bible that are not literally true. You are aware I hope that (this is totally unrelated to evolution) that the gospel of Luke has a ten year difference in the birth of Jesus than the gospel of Matthew has.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, my mistake. I misread your post. Yes, shunyadragon was correct. There are all sorts of things in the Bible that are not literally true. You are aware I hope that (this is totally unrelated to evolution) that the gospel of Luke has a ten year difference in the birth of Jesus than the gospel of Matthew has.

Ah believe that we discussed this before. I can go over this again if you'd like.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who made that claim? It would have had to have been a fundamentalist Christian. I keep pointing out how if God is real and does not lie then Genesis cannot be read literally.

Just to share -- please look at post #565.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to share -- please look at post #565.

Okay. You seem to realize that the Bible can be symbolic at times. You might take a look at Revelation as well. Will there be a very important prostitute involved in the end times? How much did she charge for whoopee? How about the dragons and other beasts?

So instead of claiming that God is a liar perhaps you should reconsider the myths of Genesis. The fact that we know that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not refute the existence of a God. But when you in effect claim that God is a liar and that God cannot lie you in effect refute your own version of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay. You seem to realize that the Bible can be symbolic at times. You might take a look at Revelation as well. Will there be a very important prostitute involved in the end times? How much did she charge for whoopee? How about the dragons and other beasts?

So instead of claiming that God is a liar perhaps you should reconsider the myths of Genesis. The fact that we know that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not refute the existence of a God. But when you in effect claim that God is a liar and that God cannot lie you in effect refute your own version of God.

That is the point. There is a prostitute symbolically speaking, of course. You can do some research on that. I'm glad you brought that up.