I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Thermos aquaticus]

Let me restate what the bible says. I am defending the following:

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.

So I am asking for proof that the above is not true. It is hard to establish exactly what the limits to evolution the bible states are true but I am looking for examples of common descent.

What features would a fossil need in order to disprove what you are defending? What shared genetic markers would disprove what you are defending?

All I can do is give you an example. For example proof that cows and whales share an ancestor.

What proof would you accept?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Ok, I have a request. Please go back through your resent posts to myself and choose the strongest example of something that defeats my own position. I will try and spend more time on your response than I have been doing recently.

In order to do that, we have to figure out what your position is and what would you would accept as disproof.

 

[Milton Platt]

I've recently committed to rejoining my family's religion (the Jehovah's Witnesses). In doing so I'm obligated to give up my belief in evolution. This is hard for me because I find evolution so logical.

To combat my resistance to rejecting evolution, I've been researching all the objections to evolution and studying all the arguments for creation. It's not working. I can't seem to give up my belief in evolution, despite the fact that it goes against Jehovah's Witness theology.

What should i do?

How do I manipulate my logical facilities so that I can genuinely reject evolution and genuinely accept creation?

Why should you even try? Stick with a fact based worldview.

 

[1robin]

When you just ignore what people post, why should they respond? If you have the time to get on-line, then don't give us this "I don't have the time" nonsense.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are not working from any scientific paradigm, thus you simply cannot establish in any way how "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops prior to reaching "macro-evolution". You insist on our "proofs", which we largely do supply you with by providing links and quotes, but you act so hypocritically because you can't offer any scientific "proofs" back to support your allegations.

Since you didn't quote me I am uncertain who this post is directed at.

 

[1robin]

Take your time and answer as well as you are able.

I am trying to but when you alone post almost 10 responses to me per day if I don't spend every spare moment I have feverishly typing I will fall behind. It would save us both A LOT of time if you would stop all the color commentary and just simply supply what I have spent weeks requesting. Others have at least tried to do this but have not even made an attempt that I can recall. If this does not happen I will be forced to limit the number of people I continue to have discussions with.

 

[1robin]

How did you supposedly "come to know it"?

What? I came to know what I believe is true the same way anyone else does.

Faith is not a pathway to the truth since one can be a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or what have you by faith. If your pathway is flawed then the "truth" that you may have will probably be flawed as well.

Then you do not know a single thing beyond the fact that you think. Every single belief anyone has who ever lived is based in faith. External realities are never known to a certainty. Our beliefs about external truths are based in probability which by definition means they are all faith based. You never have nor ever will see macroevolution occur, if you believe it has, that is a faith based conclusion.

 

[1robin]

I provided the information you requested in the following two posts....

I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

I did not say you have not posted at least what you think is proof of macroevolution. I said that until you copy and paste an excerpt from you links which justifies my investiture of time I will not fully investigate everything contained in your link.

 

[metis]

Since you didn't quote me I am uncertain who this post is directed at.

That should have been very easy since a couple of others were chiming in and saying pretty much the same to you.

 

[1robin]

That is pathetically weak. If you have no answer then let a post be.

That is incoherent.

The evidence you have demanded has been given to you by several posters. It is rather obvious that you do not even understand the basics. That is why I offered to go over the basics of science and evidence with you. Going over the basics will allow you to understand the posts of others, help you with your ability to understand sources, and perhaps make it so that you can do proper research on your own.

No it has not. It is true that at least 2 posters attempted to provide what I asked (but you have not). I looked over every specific example anyone attempted to post but none of them seemed to be proof of common descent. Stop trying to debate me by proxy. Make your own points and stop referring to things contained in other people posts.

A small investment in time can have huge payoffs.

A small investment of? I have to spend every spare moment I have typing as fast as possible just to not fall behind and you in particular require 90% of my time is spent in just correcting the mistakes in logic and reading comprehension contained in your posts.[/QUOTE]

 

[metis]

You never have nor ever will see macroevolution occur, if you believe it has, that is a faith based conclusion.

We've posted and given you links for both "macro-evolution" and "speciation", but then all you do is to come back with the above?

Maybe use common sense even if you wish to totally ignore what we post, namely that it appears all material objects change over time and genes are material objects. And secondly, if "micro-evolution" supposedly miraculously stops prior to "macro-evolution", please provide scientific evidence that this wall exists? PLEASE do not deflect and avoid the question by going off on a different tangent.

Either you have such evidence or you don't so, if you do, I do believe we'd all appreciate seeing it. If not, then maybe at least admit you don't have it.

 

[1robin]

It makes perfect sense. Posters made observations about you and you tried to claim that they were excuses.

What posters said about was not what we were discussing.

Your demands have been met, but you simply did not realize it. That is why I have offered to go over the basics with you If you learn the basics then you will be better able to understand the evidence that has been presented to you.

Not yet they haven't.

 

[1robin]

It was a paper on macroevolution. When you do not understand the terms that you are using you are guaranteed to fail.

Until you learn the basics you will simply go around in circles.

Well we will not be going in circles much longer because as far as you are concerned I after I respond to your posts to me from yesterday I am going to stop our discussion.

1. You take up as much of my time per day as everyone else combined.
2. You just are not going to even attempt to provide what I asked for.
3. You spend all your time trying to argument by proxy.
4. You demand more time than anyone else and I spend 90% of that time responding to you trying to simply correct mistakes you have made.
5. So after today I will suspend our discussion because I won't to spend more of my time on those who actually make challenging arguments.

 

[1robin]

You are right. My mistake. I thought that @1robin was the OP.

Let me correct my statement. People have offered to help 1robin to understand the science many times. He has not availed himself of those offers of assistance, And none have called him stupid.

Another argument from proxy. See post #472

 

[Subduction Zone]

What posters said about was not what we were discussing.

Actually it was. This is part of your problem.

Not yet they haven't.

Yes they have. You asked for proof of macroevolution. The problem is that you do not understand what macroevolution is. If you would deal with your failures properly you would have a lot more time to ask and answer questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another argument from proxy. See post #472

Wrong again. There is no need for you to respond to every post, especially posts that are not connected with your questions. If you did not waste so much time you could learn more.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Actually it was. This is part of your problem.

lovely

Yes they have. You asked for proof of macroevolution. The problem is that you do not understand what macroevolution is. If you would deal with your failures properly you would have a lot more time to ask and answer questions.

Sounds like a disagreement. Failure is not the word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well we will not be going in circles much longer because as far as you are concerned I after I respond to your posts to me from yesterday I am going to stop our discussion.

1. You take up as much of my time per day as everyone else combined.[/qoute]

You are welcome.

2. You just are not going to even attempt to provide what I asked for.

It has been provided. The fault lies with you. Right now I am waiting for you to agree to learn the basics so that you can understand the answers given to you.

3. You spend all your time trying to argument by proxy.

Wrong again. Learn your terminology.

4. You demand more time than anyone else and I spend 90% of that time responding to you trying to simply correct mistakes you have made.

No, I offer more help than anyone else. Again, you are welcome.

5. So after today I will suspend our discussion because I won't to spend more of my time on those who actually make challenging arguments.

No need to respond. Only to read and to learn. The offer is still out there to help you with the basic concepts of science. I can tell that you do not understand the scientific method or even the concept of evidence. When you are ready to learn and I am ready to help you.

 

[1robin]

I did in my post #338, plus I linked you to other sources as well.

I went back and looked. You didn't supply a link, you supplied 9 or them. For pity's sake I can't read 9 papers from just a single post. That is why I asked you to supply an excerpt from any link provided. As I stated emphatically at the time I acknowledge that you did at least attempt to do what I asked. So lets take a look at this single example of your attempting to prodive what I requested. From post#338 you posted:

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

I already commented on the above when you originally posted it but let me do so again. Nothing in the above is evidence that common descent is true. Not good evidence or even bad evidence, there is no evidence there at all. It is just someone somewhere saying that macroevolution exists. Having a faith based position is not evidence that that opinion is true. I did not ask you to provide a declaration, I asked for actual evidence. Now maybe you think one of the 9 links you mentioned in just the one post contains what I requested but in that case you should have copied and pasted that instead of what you did above. When you actually do so I will then investigate the link proper.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No it has not. It is true that at least 2 posters attempted to provide what I asked (but you have not). I looked over every specific example anyone attempted to post but none of them seemed to be proof of common descent.

It is rather difficult to hit a moving goal.

 

[metis]

Not good evidence or even bad evidence, there is no evidence there at all. It is just someone somewhere saying that macroevolution exists.

Will you PLEASE answer my question in #470! The rest has already been covered with links provided.