I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[1robin]

@1robin evolution has been observed. The problem is that you have a false and artificially limited definition of "observed". By your standards your fingernails do not grow since you have never observed them growing.

Why did you quote me in another post and merely mention me in this one?

I never claimed that evolution does not occur. I have emphatically claimed that the bible affirms evolution, but it limits it.

In the sciences ideas are tested. And questions are asked and answered. One usually tests an idea by what one should observe if it was true, and even more important what one should observe if it was false. That is how an idea is tested. What we should see if evolution is correct would be a fossil record that clearly supports it. One key idea of evolution is that of nested hierarchies and we should see those everywhere, which is exactly what we see.

Ok, provide me with the test which shows that cows and whales have a common ancestor.

If creationism is true what should we see? More important what possible observation would refute the idea? A serious violation of nested hierarchies could falsify the theory of evolution. A fossil severely out of date could refute evolution. What reasonable test would refute creationism? If you can't think of one then your belief is merely religious and not based upon reality at all.

First you must know exactly what it is I mean by "creation". It does not matter what you think creation means. So let me give you a brief description of what I mean by creation.

1. God created life.
2. Life evolves but has limits.
3. Those limits are hard to define but do not allow for common descent.

It is very telling that you have not provided, asked for, or even seem to care what the bible says about biology so let me give you the primary verse in question.

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now that you know what it is your supposed to counter you can provide and example.

You probably believe the flood myth, and that is even easier to refute.

Quit assuming you know exactly how I interpret verses or concepts you do not provide or even request. I have never adopted any specific view as to what the bible says about the flood. It is either literal and universal, literal and regional, or symbolic. I have no idea which one is true. Why in the world are you arguing against positions you assume I hold?

 

[Jose Fly]

I do not care what specific taxonomy term you wish to slap on any biological event you choose. I am defending what the bible states.

And that sums up creationism quite well....."I don't care about the science, I only care about the Bible".

You are right that evolution from one breeding population into another takes a long time if it even a occurs. That is exactly why I stated that it has never been observed.

I realize 1robin is only replying to one person, so I'll just note here that not only is he wrong, he's been directly shown examples of the evolution of "a new breeding population".

But as he notes above, he doesn't care about that sort of thing and only cares about the Bible. And that's pretty much the case with all creationists.

 

[1robin]

That is fine. If health problem keep you from responding that is reasonable, but it appeared that you were simply refusing to learn from the posts that have been given to you here.

I appreciate your understanding. I broke my femur a few months ago and have not been recovering as expected.

You have not posted anything to learn from. Lets go back to my initial post again. I claim that the bible affirms that while evolution occurs it is limited. Those limits are probably defined by breeding populations. So for the 20th time you need to provide proof that one breeding population evolved into another. Until you do your response are pretty much white noise which contain nothing to learn from.

We could go over each idea and see what they predict and what we observe.

Which idea?

 

[Jose Fly]

I claim that the bible affirms that while evolution occurs it is limited. Those limits are probably defined by breeding populations. So for the 20th time you need to provide proof that one breeding population evolved into another.

Here: THIS ARTICLE describes several examples. Sheesh.

 

[1robin]

And that sums up creationism quite well....."I don't care about the science, I only care about the Bible".

Oh come off it. Stating that a biological term is irrelevant is not to reject any science what so ever. It is irrelevant because I am defending what the bible says. Biblical semantics are all that is relevant here. What I responded to had no science in it to ignore.

I realize 1robin is only replying to one person, so I'll just note here that not only is he wrong, he's been directly shown examples of the evolution of "a new breeding population".

Why are you referring to me in the third person. My health has not been good lately so I recently tried to pare the discussions I was having down a bit. However I do have a little time on my hands at the moment so if you actually have scientific evidence you might want to try posting it.

But as he notes above, he doesn't care about that sort of thing and only cares about the Bible. And that's pretty much the case with all creationists.

This is bizarre, exactly who are you talking to? I thought it was me but your language use is strange.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh come off it. Stating that a biological term is irrelevant is not to reject any science what so ever. It is irrelevant because I am defending what the bible says. Biblical semantics are all that is relevant here. What I responded to had no science in it to ignore.

Again you illustrate the point. To you, Biblical terminology is relevant whereas scientific terminology is irrelevant.

Why are you referring to me in the third person. My health has not been good lately so I recently tried to pare the discussions I was having down a bit.

You answered your own question.

However I do have a little time on my hands at the moment so if you actually have scientific evidence you might want to try posting it.

Already done.

 

[1robin]

Here: THIS ARTICLE describes several examples. Sheesh.

Why are you so frustrated when asked to actually provide evidence to justify your position? Your last post did not even appear to be directed at myself. At least invest the time to copy and paste from the article or articles your link leads to. I could provide hundreds of links that claim macroevolution is a myth but that would only show that I am lazy.

 

[1robin]

Again you illustrate the point. To you, Biblical terminology is relevant whereas scientific terminology is irrelevant.

This is absurd. Give me a break.

You answered your own question.

No I did not.

Already done.

No you have not. All you have done is copy and paste an generalized link. Spend the time to copy and paste from your link the specific part that disproves something I have said. If I find it challenging I will then spend sufficient time to read the rest of the article. I could provide hundreds of links that I claim refute your position but would only prove I am intellectually lazy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why are you so frustrated when asked to actually provide evidence to justify your position?

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm showing that your claim is wrong.

At least invest the time to copy and paste from the article or articles your link leads to.

Seriously? Why are you unable to click a link and read the contents? Are you incapable of reading words unless they are copied?

I could provide hundreds of links that claim macroevolution is a myth but that would only show that I am lazy.

You're showing your laziness right now. I didn't link to some random website; I linked to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the world.

If you can't be bothered to read it, that speaks for itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is absurd. Give me a break.

Non-response noted.

No I did not.

You asked why I was not speaking directly to you, and followed that by noting how you didn't have time to respond to every post. Obviously then, I was speaking that way because I didn't expect you to respond, as you had done before.

No you have not. All you have done is copy and paste an generalized link.

No, it's a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the world. The fact that you can't be bothered to even click it shows that you're not really interested in finding out whether your claim is accurate.

Spend the time to copy and paste from your link the specific part that disproves something I have said. If I find it challenging I will then spend sufficient time to read the rest of the article. I could provide hundreds of links that I claim refute your position but would only prove I am intellectually lazy.

I guess I'm used to discussing science with folks who are actually interested in science. Those types are typically excited and curious when given a relevant paper to read. OTOH, other types just make excuses for why they won't read it.

 

[Polymath257]

Why are you so frustrated when asked to actually provide evidence to justify your position? Your last post did not even appear to be directed at myself. At least invest the time to copy and paste from the article or articles your link leads to. I could provide hundreds of links that claim macroevolution is a myth but that would only show that I am lazy.

*** Mod Post ***
Copy and Pasting is discouraged at RF if it is more than a paragraph or so.

7. Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited. When quoting other members, use the forum's quote feature so the person and material you are responding to are easily referenced (see Rules 1 and 3 for additional guidelines regarding quoting other members' posts). When quoting material external to RF, even if it is your own, always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your understanding. I broke my femur a few months ago and have not been recovering as expected.

You have not posted anything to learn from. Lets go back to my initial post again. I claim that the bible affirms that while evolution occurs it is limited. Those limits are probably defined by breeding populations. So for the 20th time you need to provide proof that one breeding population evolved into another. Until you do your response are pretty much white noise which contain nothing to learn from.


Which idea?

Tsk tsk. You will never learn with such an attitude.

 

[1robin]

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm showing that your claim is wrong.

That is the one thing you did not show. Now you did post a link, but I can't fully investigate every link I am given, so I asked you to just copy and paste from the link the proof that anything I said was wrong. I am still waiting on you to do so.

Seriously? Why are you unable to click a link and read the contents? Are you incapable of reading words unless they are copied?

I did not say anything about my ability to follow a link. I said that simply posting links is intellectual laziness so you need to copy and paste from a link in order to show justification for me to invest the time to sufficiently investigate your link. Why don't you stop complaining and do so.

You're showing your laziness right now. I didn't link to some random website; I linked to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the world.

It would take you less time to copy and paste from your link than you to keep making excuses for not doing so. I am lazy myself but that has nothing to do with my not fully investigating every link others cough up. I will invest your link once you justify my investing the time to do so.

If you can't be bothered to read it, that speaks for itself.

It certainly does. You need to show that my investment of time is justifiable. Why don't you simply do so?

 

[Darkstorn]

Now you did post a link, but I can't fully investigate every link I am given, so I asked you to just copy and paste from the link the proof that anything I said was wrong. I am still waiting on you to do so.

So... If a link contains said "proof" it doesn't actually exist provisionally until you actually go in and physically read it, and since you didn't bother to, such proof doesn't exist to you?

This just makes you look both disingenuous and lazy. But it is your choice on how you wish to present yourself in the internet.

It certainly does. You need to show that my investment of time is justifiable. Why don't you simply do so?

It's a debate. Not bothering to read the content of the posts of your opponents shows to others the shakiness of your position. Is that good enough?

I said that simply posting links is intellectual laziness

As a non-party to this argument, i say not reading those links is intellectual laziness. And physical laziness.

 

[1robin]

Non-response noted.

Ditto.

You asked why I was not speaking directly to you, and followed that by noting how you didn't have time to respond to every post. Obviously then, I was speaking that way because I didn't expect you to respond, as you had done before.

No, I explained why I formerly paired down the number of discussions I was participating in. I also stated that at the moment I had a little time on my hands so I would respond to discussions I recently limited.

No, it's a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the world. The fact that you can't be bothered to even click it shows that you're not really interested in finding out whether your claim is accurate.

I didn't challenge your links source. Let me try yet again to explain this.

1. It takes a significant amount of time to fully investigate every link I am given.
2. While I have a little time to invest at the moment that time is not inexhaustible.
3. So I have to have sufficient justification to invest the time it will take to read a specific paper or article.
4. All you have to do is copy the most persuasive paragraph from the paper in question, once done I would investigate the link or explain why I wouldn't.
5. It would take less time for you to do the above than it is taking you to refuse to do so.

I guess I'm used to discussing science with folks who are actually interested in science. Those types are typically excited and curious when given a relevant paper to read. OTOH, other types just make excuses for why they won't read it.

I did not reject any scientific claim anyone made. I did not refuse to investigate your link. I only asked you justify the time needed to sufficiently investigate your link. No one is rejecting anything scientific.

 

[1robin]

*** Mod Post ***
Copy and Pasting is discouraged at RF if it is more than a paragraph or so.

7. Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited. When quoting other members, use the forum's quote feature so the person and material you are responding to are easily referenced (see Rules 1 and 3 for additional guidelines regarding quoting other members' posts). When quoting material external to RF, even if it is your own, always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines).

What are you referring to? I plagiarized nothing, and I specifically requested a paragraph at most be copied and pasted from a provided link. I am not sure what your post means.

 

[Darkstorn]

2. While I have a little time to invest at the moment that time is not inexhaustible.

I read the entire thread. This sounds like a HUGE deflection.

You literally had the time to keep posting, just not reading. For OVER A MONTH.

Let's put this into perspective: You are making lots of excuses for not having the time to bother to read links. You've been posting for over a month in this thread, wasting a HUGE amount of time.

But no, you cannot read a page with _one A4 page worth of text_. No, your time is too precious.

What are you referring to? I plagiarized nothing, and I specifically requested a paragraph at most be copied and pasted from a provided link. I am not sure what your post means.

I am not surprised.

 

[metis]

Sorry my health has been pretty bad lately so I have been away for a while.

Sorry to hear that.

I am defending what the bible states.

When we deal with the evolution of life forms, that's science, not religion. Much like we don't use science to dictate what your religion may teach, it really doesn't make much sense to use a specific interpretation of the Bible to judge biology by.

I am defending what the bible states. You are right that evolution from one breeding population into another takes a long time if it even a occurs. That is exactly why I stated that it has never been observed.

"Speciation" says otherwise: Speciation - Wikipedia Also, there are links to studies that you can click on.

I specifically said the bible affirms the existence of evolution, microevolution, but not macroevolution.

I posted a scientific source before plus where you can find others that confirm that "macro-evolution" can and has taken place. So, here from a non-scientific source:
Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".[8] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation – this is especially common in plants.[9]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[10][11] -- Macroevolution - Wikipedia



Other such sources: :Examples of Macroevolution

From science sources: Natural Selection and Macroevolution in your lifetime – Starts With A Bang

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable

Exploring macroevolution using modern and fossil data


There's lots more where these came from if you google "macroevolution examples".

 

[Darkstorn]

Uh, all those links. He just tried to avoid having to read one. I wonder how he'll go over your several...

 

[Subduction Zone]

<snip>

I did not reject any scientific claim anyone made. I did not refuse to investigate your link. I only asked you justify the time needed to sufficiently investigate your link. No one is rejecting anything scientific.

Actually you do that quite often. I even tried to explain to you how one scientifically investigates an idea and you ignored that.

You keep making the claim that evolution has not been observed and then ignore the corrections of that claim of yours.

Perhaps we should go over some basic concepts in science, such as what is and what is not evidence, how on observes events, how one tests one's ideas. All you have so far is denial and a demand for "proof" which only shows a lack of understanding of how one works in the sciences. We can supply endless evidence for evolution. There is no scientific evidence that goes against evolution. In the sciences nothing is ever proven. But if you accept gravity as real then you should accept evolution. Both concepts are observable and testable. There are no scientific ideas that exist that are in competition with those two ideas.