I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[ecco]

I said it has never been observed therefor it is not known to have occurred...

You have never observed your fingernails growing. Therefore, you have no need to cut them. Right?

... therefor the bible's claim is perfectly consistent with known reality.

No one has ever observed a dinosaur. Therefore, dinosaurs never existed. This is in complete agreement with the bible. It is not consistent with known reality.

If your not real clever your going to accidentally get it despite yourself.

If you're even a bit clever, you may learn the proper contraction for "you are" is "you're".

Holy cow, after dozens of posts where I repeatedly pointed out it can't be known you finally see why it can't. Duh!!!!

See above RE: dinosaurs.

That is it, case closed. Glad I could drag you kicking and screaming to admit that what the bible claimed 3000 years ago is exactly what it is being observed today.

If you believe that I admitted that anything in the bible is accurate, your reading skills are even worse than your writing skills.

 

[ecco]

Are you saying if something was not observed, it didn't happen?

No.

No?

Then what did you mean when you said...

it has never been observed therefor it is not known to have occurred

Are you claiming that a thing that isn't known constitutes evidence for anything?

Of course not. That would be silly. That would be like saying an unknowable god is evidence for everything. I would never say anything like that.

 

[ecco]

The "grand scale" of macro-evolution is assumed....but the evidence upon which it is based is so flimsy as to be laughable IMO.

The "godly authorship" of the bible is assumed....but the evidence upon which it is based is so flimsy as to be laughable.

 

[Deeje]

The "godly authorship" of the bible is assumed....but the evidence upon which it is based is so flimsy as to be laughable.

And we each have the freedom to make those assessments.....its the end result that counts though, isn't it?
What do you have to look forward to?

The Bible has proven itself to me, as has it author, in many real ways. I'm sad that you never got to know him.....he is a much better friend than he is an enemy.

 

[ecco]

Fossils for example have no voice apart from the one scientists give them. They can make them say anything they want. Who is going to argue?

Who? Any scientist who wants to make a name for himself.

• Copernicus said the current theory of geocentrism was flawed.
• Einstein said the current theory of gravity was flawed.
• Hubble said the current theory of a static universe was flawed.

You really don't understand science at all.

Because scientists begin with a premise that evolution must be true, so they interpret all their "evidence" to fit into that box.

Scientists do not begin with a premise that anything must be true. See above.

OTOH fundies begin with a premise that everything in a 3000 year old text must be true. Of course they fudge things where necessary - A Day is not A Day.

 

[ecco]

The "godly authorship" of the bible is assumed....but the evidence upon which it is based is so flimsy as to be laughable.

And we each have the freedom to make those assessments.....its the end result that counts though, isn't it?

So you admit you make the assessment of the validity of the bible based on nothing. OK.

What do you have to look forward to?

Regarding what? Eternity? You wouldn't be trying to evade the gist of the conversation would you?

The Bible has proven itself to me, as has it author, in many real ways.

Good. Now give us one absolutely incontrovertible instance where the bible has proved itself. Please do not post toucan pictures. That won't cut it.

I'm sad that you never got to know him.....he is a much better friend than he is an enemy.

I don't consider imaginary entities to be friends or enemies.

Do you look under your bed at night to see if there are scarey imaginary entities there?

Do you consider psychic snowflakes to be your friends or your enemies?

 

[Deeje]

It's certainly not all the evidence but I'm no expert and would have a difficult time explaining it.

...science has a difficult time explaining it too.

But, on the subject of whales... you accept that all whales are the one kind, therefore baleen whales and toothed whales all evolved from the one original whale kind? It seems to me a lot of evolving to go from something like a Bottle-nosed Dolphin to a Blue Whale. In fact it seems more involved than a land mammal evolving into a Dolphin.

Hmmm. I believe that all creatures who exhibit programming were the product of a programmer. Can you imagine that echo-location can evolve in dolphins and bats without some intelligent source installing the programming?

Can a small furry creature the size of a dog morph itself into a whale...? The "evidence" for that is so small that a similar ear bone for me just doesn't cut it.

If you have trouble believing that whales could evolve from dolphins, then how can you accept that dinosaurs came from single celled microscopic organisms? Talk about a stretch...with nothing but conjecture to base it on. My logic and credulity won't stretch that far.

Macro-evolution is flawed at its foundation. It uses adaptation to infer that if a 'little did this...a lot must have done that"...not very "scientific"is it? There is nothing real to back it up....just lots of unsubstantiated suggestion.

Fair enough, it's similar to what I require before believing in a God.

We will all believe what we want to believe.....IMO, what we want to believe tells God who we are and what he will do about us. We are all actually responsible for our own destiny.

The problem is that it's only creationists that use the term macro evolution. I only think in terms of evolution.

Then you are well trained not to discern the difference.....it is massive.

Your assuming evolutionists threw the 1st punch.

They are the ones who have a need to kill God. He is some sort of threat to their freedom apparently.
He can't die, so they are only really sorting people out for him. They do serve a purpose...a bit like the devil.

It's only opinion unless you provide evidence.

Exactly. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish.....but what constitutes "evidence" in your opinion?

When I examine what science offers as "evidence" I see holes you can drive a Mack Truck through. But in the language of suggestion, there is a twisting of the truth that is not apparent to those who are not looking for it.
Assumption is passed off as fact but when you call them out on it...instead of providing more "evidence" (which they claim to have mountains of) they resort to name calling and insinuating that the opposer must be either ignorant or unintelligent......do you know how many times I have been accused of "not understanding science"? I understand what they infer perfectly...I just think its a load of suggestion, devoid of any real substantiation.

It would take way more convincing substantive proof to convince me that we are not designed creatures living in a designed world. Everything exhibits planning and where there is planning, there is forethought and intelligence. None of this is a fluke. Its too brilliant not to have been designed.

Yes indeed, I'm in Port Stephens (north of Newcastle) and a massive bird nerd which is what attracted me to this conversation. I'm currently helping some people research the recent southward colonisation of Brahminy Kites and also with migratory waders. It's fascinating to me how a relatively small bird such as a Grey-tailed Tattler travels all the way from my estuary to Siberia to breed.

I am down the south coast and I just love the birds here. Lots of rainbow lorikeets and cockatoos. Noisy corellas too in huge flocks. See my avatar....these guys sit on lamp posts here just waiting to whitewash the unsuspecting tourist.....

or their vehicle. They wait for the fishing boats to come in so that they can feed on the offcuts.

When I lived in the mountains, there were English Blackbirds, Larks and Nightingales.....along with the Aussie natives....we should start a thread just dedicated to birds and their amazing abilities......nest building and migration and courtship dances....so incredible!

 

[osgart]

Where is the correlation between natural laws, and the inevitability of life solely based on natural laws?

One piece of evidence will do.

Are there fitness tests, simulations, or just mere happenstance conclusions that it must be, and no other explanation fits according to methodological naturalism.

How tight are the transitions?

Im sort of sick of taking evolution on faith. Even reading some of the evidence sites its easy to get bogged down in esoteric language.

I think most people take their knowledge on faith and indoctrination.

Even believing in an evolution, there remains a ton of questions, and religious people will always take that jump, and wonder if there is only partial pictures out there. Speculation serves to compel further investigation, because of the skepticism that the whole picture is far more difficult to deduce.

It takes a lengthy commitment of study to investigate evolution, or intelligent cause.

How many people default on the journey and merely stick to their own sense of wonder?

 

[Deeje]

You really don't understand science at all.

I understand English though. And I understand that when phrases such as "might have" or "could have" are used in connection with "evidence" that the reverse is equally true....These things "might not have" or "could not have" happened....based on what might crop up tomorrow.

That makes the science of evolution very speculative IMO. It is the science of suggestion because they are way short on facts.

Scientists do not begin with a premise that anything must be true.

Oh, but they do.

To most scientists, the basic premise of evolution is unquestionable...they might disagree on the details but no serious scientist who wants to survive with any credibility will ever oppose it.

OTOH fundies begin with a premise that everything in a 3000 year old text must be true. Of course they fudge things where necessary - A Day is not A Day.

A "day" in the Bible can be a thousand years....or 24 hours or... any undetermined period of time. The Genesis account does not support YEC if taken literally. The earth and the universe could be billions of years old. The creative "days" are unspecified periods where a lot of things were accomplished as Genesis states. I believe the Bible because I have no reason not to. It makes way more sense than people like you do.
Where is your evidence? All we hear from the likes of you are insults. Tell someone who cares....

So you admit you make the assessment of the validity of the bible based on nothing.

You mean like you do with evolution? Still waiting for the substantive evidence that shows us how dinosaurs evolved from microscopic single celled organisms.....can we expect some any time soon...or just more of the same empty rhetoric?

Now give us one absolutely incontrovertible instance where the bible has proved itself.

Here you go.... https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989038?q=science+bible&p=par

I don't consider imaginary entities to be friends or enemies.

Once they manifest, they are no longer imaginary.

 

[ecco]

It takes a lengthy commitment of study to investigate evolution, or intelligent cause.

Unless you want to become an expert on the subject, it doesn't take a lengthy commitment.

All it takes is a commitment to believe all the advances in scientific knowledge that have occurred in the past two hundred years.

Alternately, you can believe stuff written 3000 years ago by people who knew nothing about science.

 

[osgart]

Unless you want to become an expert on the subject, it doesn't take a lengthy commitment.

All it takes is a commitment to believe all the advances in scientific knowledge that have occurred in the past two hundred years.

Alternately, you can believe stuff written 3000 years ago by people who knew nothing about science.

I certainly believe they can manipulate the physical world shockingly well. When does science lead to an accurate philosophical framework? It seems like every scientific explanation is going to be mathematical.

I know they will work very hard on the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe. So we will wait and see if they can work it all out. I dont have any faith in that though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I certainly believe they can manipulate the physical world shockingly well. When does science lead to an accurate philosophical framework? It seems like every scientific explanation is going to be mathematical.

I know they will work very hard on the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe. So we will wait and see if they can work it all out. I dont have any faith in that though.

What do you mean by a philosophical framework? You may have an unrealistic expectation of what scientists are supposed to do.

 

[John53]

...science has a difficult time explaining it too.

Does it? I just finished some reading on whale evolution and for me they do a fine job of explaining it and they have a lot more evidence than an ear bone as you keep claiming.

Hmmm. I believe that all creatures who exhibit programming were the product of a programmer. Can you imagine that echo-location can evolve in dolphins and bats without some intelligent source installing the programming?

Yes I can imagine it evolved.

Can a small furry creature the size of a dog morph itself into a whale...? The "evidence" for that is so small that a similar ear bone for me just doesn't cut it.

Have you ever bothered to thoroughly investigate whale evolution? What you are saying is not what is said.

If you have trouble believing that whales could evolve from dolphins, then how can you accept that dinosaurs came from single celled microscopic organisms? Talk about a stretch...with nothing but conjecture to base it on. My logic and credulity won't stretch that far.

I have no trouble believing baleen whales and toothed whales had a common ancestor, you either misunderstood what I asked, I didn't ask it clearly or you are deliberately twisting my words. I'll assume I wasn't clear. What I said was I think there is less change involved in going from a land based animal to a dolphin than there is in going from a dolphin to a blue whale.

Macro-evolution is flawed at its foundation. It uses adaptation to infer that if a 'little did this...a lot must have done that"...not very "scientific"is it? There is nothing real to back it up....just lots of unsubstantiated suggestion.

There's the fossil record to back it. I go back to whales, you said all whales are the same kind and I said there's a lot of change to go from a toothed whale to a baleen whale.

We will all believe what we want to believe.....IMO, what we want to believe tells God who we are and what he will do about us. We are all actually responsible for our own destiny.

Can't argue with that and if a God ever takes the time show me some evidence he/she/them exist I will look at it.

Then you are well trained not to discern the difference.....it is massive.

Then educate me, my mind is open. Show me evidence that new species can't evolve.

They are the ones who have a need to kill God. He is some sort of threat to their freedom apparently.
He can't die, so they are only really sorting people out for him. They do serve a purpose...a bit like the devil.

God has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of theists who agree with evolution.

Exactly. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish.....but what constitutes "evidence" in your opinion?

Usually something I can see and touch like fossils.

When I examine what science offers as "evidence" I see holes you can drive a Mack Truck through. But in the language of suggestion, there is a twisting of the truth that is not apparent to those who are not looking for it.
Assumption is passed off as fact but when you call them out on it...instead of providing more "evidence" (which they claim to have mountains of) they resort to name calling and insinuating that the opposer must be either ignorant or unintelligent......do you know how many times I have been accused of "not understanding science"? I understand what they infer perfectly...I just think its a load of suggestion, devoid of any real substantiation.

Of course there is going to be holes, fossils need very specific conditions to form. If someone claimed a complete record I would be very suspicious.

It would take way more convincing substantive proof to convince me that we are not designed creatures living in a designed world. Everything exhibits planning and where there is planning, there is forethought and intelligence. None of this is a fluke. Its too brilliant not to have been designed.

I disagree completely, we're wondering a bit and this is starting to get confusing but if all this was planned it wasn't planned very well. The sun is a perfect example, we need a certain amount on our skin to be healthy but too much and it kills us... who would design a system like that!

I am down the south coast and I just love the birds here. Lots of rainbow lorikeets and cockatoos. Noisy corellas too in huge flocks. See my avatar....these guys sit on lamp posts here just waiting to whitewash the unsuspecting tourist.....

or their vehicle. They wait for the fishing boats to come in so that they can feed on the offcuts.

When I lived in the mountains, there were English Blackbirds, Larks and Nightingales.....along with the Aussie natives....we should start a thread just dedicated to birds and their amazing abilities......nest building and migration and courtship dances....so incredible!

I'd be in on that. I have to 500gb external drives full of bird pictures I've taken. The computer hard drive is starting to get full again so I'll be getting another external drive tomorrow. It's almost embarrassing lol

 

[ecco]

I understand English though. And I understand that when phrases such as "might have" or "could have" are used in connection with "evidence" that the reverse is equally true....These things "might not have" or "could not have" happened....based on what might crop up tomorrow.

There is indeed a big difference between scientists and theologists.

Theologists will tell you the 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount are the accurately recorded words spoken by Jesus. They provide no clues as to how these 2000+ words were accurately recorded. They just expect people to believe it.

Scientists are honest enough to be cautious in their wording. And, yes, new stuff crops up all the time. Regarding ToE, over the past 200 years, there have been a lot of changes in the thinking of science. All of them have just strengthened the theory. None have disproved or even weakened it. You know that.

To most scientists, the basic premise of evolution is unquestionable...they might disagree on the details but no serious scientist who wants to survive with any credibility will ever oppose it.

It is unquestionable after 200 years. Any scientist that could find a serious flaw in ToE would certainly come under a lot of pressure to provide extensive evidence to support his concepts. However, if he was able to do so, he would probably win a Noble Prize.

The people who lose credibility are people like Behe who keep insisting the eye could not have come about naturally. He has been shown repeatedly the flaws in his "science". After a while, the scientific community just ignores him. Hoyle believed in a steady state universe until he died.

A "day" in the Bible can be a thousand years....or 24 hours or... any undetermined period of time. The Genesis account does not support YEC if taken literally.
...
I believe the Bible because I have no reason not to. It makes way more sense than people like you do.

You believe in your interpretation of the bible. I have a lot more respect for fundies who take the bible literally than for people who say they believe the bible and then twist words to accommodate their preconceived notions.

 

[ecco]

I certainly believe they can manipulate the physical world shockingly well. When does science lead to an accurate philosophical framework? It seems like every scientific explanation is going to be mathematical.

I know they will work very hard on the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe. So we will wait and see if they can work it all out. I dont have any faith in that though.

You sound a lot more like a theist than an agnostic.

 

[osgart]

You sound a lot more like a theist than an agnostic.

I love the arguments for contingency but i dont see the need to evoke god. Im satisfied that there is an realm that is an uncaused cause of our reality. I wonder more than know. But it compels me.

 

[osgart]

What do you mean by a philosophical framework? You may have an unrealistic expectation of what scientists are supposed to do.

I believe scientists are more interested in how things do what they do.

Why would have to be determined somewhere else, no matter what they discover.

I dont lean on religions of the past. Science and philosophy i think are forever divorced.

No matter what philosophy does it cant contribute a thing to science , and vice versa.

Whatever science does , you will have to be a mathematician to appreciate or understand it.

 

[ecco]

You sound a lot more like a theist than an agnostic.

I love the arguments for contingency but i dont see the need to evoke god. Im satisfied that there is an realm that is an uncaused cause of our reality. I wonder more than know. But it compels me.

• i dont see the need to evoke god.
• Im satisfied that there is an realm that is an uncaused cause of our reality.

If you are satisfied that there is a realm that is an uncaused cause of our reality then you are invoking a god.

If you are invoking a god, you are not agnostic.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have never said that,

Then you should be able to answer these questions.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

What genetic marker would you need to see in order to evidence common ancestry between humans and chimps?

 

[1robin]

These changes seen in the fossil record took more than 3 million years:

This proves that 14 creatures existed with somewhat similar looking heads. Fossils are not evidence for any kind of evolution.

What you have shown is that if you can call two species by the same name then they are in the same kind. Therefore, humans and trout are in the same kind because I can call them both vertebrates.

I never said that. What I said is the only thing that has ever been observed is change within breeding populations. Kind being most often translated as breeding populations.

There are different breeding populations of finches on the Galapagos, yet you claimed they were in the same kind. Therefore, that can't be one of your criteria. The only criteria I have seen you use is if you can use the same word to describe more than one species.

Yes they are the same kind, they are all finches.

"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."
Observed Instances of Speciation

This sounds like genetic manipulation not a natural event.

Production of two isolated breeding populations, just as you requested.

The issue is what naturally occurs not what geneticists can make happen. I will give you credit though, you are at least attempting to show what I asked for.

Even though what you supplied appears to be a manipulation of genetics lets examine it further. It looks like you just copied and pasted something but if you actually understand what you posted can you explain how this is not simply change within the same type of creature. It appears this is simply change within a specific type of semi-species? I am way behind and do not have the time to read up on this at the moment.