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

[Pogo]

I am glad you said that. I appreciate your respect and honesty. The question for me is: do I believe the evidence leads to the conclusion of many that evolution is how lifeforms developed from a single cell to humans? I am, of course, going to say no right now and hope to find out more later.

That is fine, just don't pretend that you understand the reasoning and have reasons to question it.
Your questions are either strawmen indicating you don't want to admit to the logic or you really don't understand what everyone has explained to you ad nauseum.
If you just want to say I don't believe it because it conflicts with my faith position, that is respectable, lying about your reasons and trying to cover them up with strawmen is not.

 

[Brian2]

Are you a skeptic in general for how you doubt all types of evidence? Or are you as most people a local one in that you doubt all types of evidence expect your own type?

I don't doubt all types of evidence, I respect all types of evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Software repeat.

 

[Sargonski]

I do. You should have a pretty good idea about that, too.

No you don't have any idea .. but it is not the point either way ..as the fact that you can't figure out the fallacy in play is what is in the way _

 

[Brian2]

And if undetectable graviton pixies were involved in regulating gravity, then a third party was involved and science would never know....

You can invent undetectable third parties till you are blue in the face. If you have no supporting evidence for them, then they are meaningless claims.

The fact remains the same: we can account for changing environments. No third parties required.
The environment is ever-changing, including today. We can observe that. No gods or other "third parties" required.

You are the one who likes to invent undetectable third parties that have no other point of contact with reality except your imagination.
There is supporting evidence for God, so a claim for God is not meaningless, but it is evidence that you reject, and that is probably part of your incredulity fallacy that you are involved in and part of your empiricism only beliefs.

You continue to insist on this strawman. Why?
Do you understand the difference between "there is no..." and "there is no need nor evidence for..."?

Either you don't and you need to learn the difference.
Or you do and are being intellectually dishonest on purpose.

I understand the difference and that science can only say that for their purposes there is no need for.....
It is from there that atheists step out and say "Science, only science and empiricism is real and so there are no gods."

And you would be among those people.

Are you saying that you do not say that no third party was involve in evolution etc?
No, you say that all the time.
It is a statement of faith just as my "I believe a third party was involved", is a statment of faith.
I don't see that you saying that I have faith, is a criticism, even if mentality may have meant it that way.
I also don't see that my saying that you are probably a believer in scientism is a criticism.

 

[YoursTrue]

@John53 Continuing--Going back a bit to cladistics, here is one definition:
"Cladistics (/kləˈdɪstɪks/; from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch')[1] is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized in groups ("clades") based on hypotheses of most recent common ancestry. "

Cladistics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

hypotheses of most recent common ancestry.

 

[Argentbear]

OK, so it had those things.

Well...

Do you or scientists that study this stuff know which type of fish began morphing (I mean evolving naturally) to be the next step (whatever it is)

So yes, that is something known

So where's the substantive proof/show/evidence (whatever you want to call it) that demonstrates or shows which fish morphed to be more than fish.

Its right there

Except which fish do scientists know started the morphing process? Oh, yes, let me guess, who knows, maybe I"ll be right! Scientists do not KNOW which type or species of fish started moving to get on to land,

Seems they do know

Do you know if a couple of fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land,

sure do, and now you know one too.

Oh--every living creature doesn't fossilise you say so one cannot name one particular species that morphed-evolved to something graduating-changing in the process of leaving fishdom going to land dwellers.

and here is a named one.

 

[Pogo]

You are the one who likes to invent undetectable third parties that have no other point of contact with reality except your imagination.
There is supporting evidence for God, so a claim for God is not meaningless, but it is evidence that you reject, and that is probably part of your incredulity fallacy that you are involved in and part of your empiricism only beliefs.



I understand the difference and that science can only say that for their purposes there is no need for.....
It is from there that atheists step out and say "Science, only science and empiricism is real and so there are no gods."



Are you saying that you do not say that no third party was involve in evolution etc?
No, you say that all the time.
It is a statement of faith just as my "I believe a third party was involved", is a statment of faith.
I don't see that you saying that I have faith, is a criticism, even if mentality may have meant it that way.
I also don't see that my saying that you are probably a believer in scientism is a criticism.

You should actually go find a theist who is also a scientist they can confirm to you that they do not use their belief in this third party in their scientific analysis etc. This in spite of the fact that they do believe that in some unknown and unevidenced way, it does.
Science functions under the philosophical rubric of methodological naturalism scientists personally may be of many philosophies.

methodological naturalism

The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

 

[Brian2]

My argument was that since no god is needed to account for any observed phenomena, gods have no place in science or in the lives of empiricists.

What job would a god have been or still is needed to do? None. A god might have set the early universe in motion, or it might have created the first life, but we have naturalistic hypotheses for these as well. You shouldn't ever expect science to begin talking about gods until they detect one or some phenomenon that only the existence of a god could explain.

I don't expect science to start talking about gods. I do however draw a line between science and my life. Science, by necessity, uses empiricism only (well in theory at least), and ignores evidence that cannot be tested or falsified. As a human however I see other evidence and can use that in the development of my worldview.
If you have closed off possibilities of what a god might be needed for except creation and giving life then you have pretty important possibilities but neglect any other possibilities of a god being important during and after the lives of people and the history of the universe and of humanity.

I'm discussing non-interventionist gods like the deist god. We have no evidence for gods that modify our reality as by coming to earth, providing revelation, performing miracles, or answering prayer. We have insufficient evidence to believe that those things ever happen. And the truth of a non-interventionist god is, as I said, moot. I can imagine both and couldn't use that answer for anything.

I'm discussing all types of possible gods and all potentialities, even those arrived at outside of the empiricist box.

 

[Pogo]

@John53 Continuing--Going back a bit to cladistics, here is one definition:
"Cladistics (/kləˈdɪstɪks/; from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch')[1] is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized in groups ("clades") based on hypotheses of most recent common ancestry. "

Cladistics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

hypotheses of most recent common ancestry.

Yes that appears to be a slightly disordered copy of Wikipedia's definition, you wish to dispute this? We welcome it, where is your evidence?

 

[Valjean]

You might as well look up more about the postulates of Darwin -- whereas I realize what most scientists agree on referring to the process of evolution, there are many unknown factors, by that I do mean proof even though it is said there is no proof in science. And no wonder because in this case with all the many forms of life, there is no proof scientifically for any lifeform emerging and changing to the various entities of life such as birds, dinosaurs, whales, and so forth. As I have said and will keep saying until proven wrong, birds remain birds, gorillas remain gorillas, and so far, humans remain humans.

There is, though, an awful lot of evidence.

 

[Pogo]

I don't expect science to start talking about gods. I do however draw a line between science and my life. Science, by necessity, uses empiricism only (well in theory at least), and ignores evidence that cannot be tested or falsified. As a human however I see other evidence and can use that in the development of my worldview.
If you have closed off possibilities of what a god might be needed for except creation and giving life then you have pretty important possibilities but neglect any other possibilities of a god being important during and after the lives of people and the history of the universe and of humanity.



I'm discussing all types of possible gods and all potentialities, even those arrived at outside of the empiricist box.

We are saying that until you can come back with some reproducible evidence of these gods effects whathave you they are irrelevant to a discussion of creationism vs evolution. We can all imagine many things, but we can't use them usefully in a discussion of reality.

 

[gnostic]

You might as well look up more about the postulates of Darwin -- whereas I realize what most scientists agree on referring to the process of evolution, there are many unknown factors, by that I do mean proof even though it is said there is no proof in science.

Well, you really should look at what modern Natural Selection, contemporary to us, like the last 30 and 40 years, and not Darwin’s original Natural Selection, because Darwin knew nothing about modern genetics and molecular biology which would include modern knowledge of DNA and protein.

You can’t focus on something that Darwin wrote, as Natural Selection have been updated.

You are being both ignorant, deceitful and arrogant, thinking that Darwin has to know everything…well, he didn’t.

Second. You keep bringing up bloody fishes, but you are ignoring the evidence that some fishes do have bones and joints in their lobe-fins, and some species have lungs.

Third, Darwin‘s specialities were plants, birds and some land animals...those were his main focuses in his works. Fishes he doesn’t write much about, so it would also be pointless to expect him know much about fishes.

 

[Pogo]

There is, though, an awful lot of evidence.

But it is only a postulate, it was not even a theory. / @yours true

 

[John53]

I notice that, but the basic idea is there. I would not pay to read that either. And -- there are many other websites that announce Darwin's postulations.

I can't follow you, it was scientific postulations, now it's Darwin's postulations. Just say what you mean and drop words like postulation that no one uses. Or if you must use them define what you mean.

 

[John53]

I am glad you said that. I appreciate your respect and honesty. The question for me is: do I believe the evidence leads to the conclusion of many that evolution is how lifeforms developed from a single cell to humans? I am, of course, going to say no right now and hope to find out more later.

Everybody who tries to communicate with you has said the same thing. There is no proof but there is much evidence.

 

[John53]

@John53 Continuing--Going back a bit to cladistics, here is one definition:
"Cladistics (/kləˈdɪstɪks/; from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch')[1] is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized in groups ("clades") based on hypotheses of most recent common ancestry. "

Cladistics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

hypotheses of most recent common ancestry.

I don't remember any discussion with you about cladistics.

Biological classification is something I believe you are very confused about as you will often as you often compare family, genus and species together.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't follow you, it was scientific postulations, now it's Darwin's postulations. Just say what you mean and drop words like postulation that no one uses. Or if you must use them define what you mean.

I did some research and came across the following, which is very interesting..

It's quite lengthy and I only heard about 1/3 of it, nevertheless it is very interesting so far because of the questions raised. I intend to listen to the rest of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't remember any discussion with you about cladistics.

Cladistics came into the picture now because of a discussion I had with someone else here who insisted that humans are monkeys because of cladistics.
And some here have said that humans are fish basically because they believe humans evolved from fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

ok, thanks for discussion..hopefully I'll be back