Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

For those who are interested in what exactly a "kind" is here is an informative article. On Biblical Kinds - CSI

Thank you for the link......but what does it prove? The Genesis account was not produced as a science journal written for those with science degrees. It was written for ordinary people with eyes to see what the Creator had produced. Do the animals care what "kind" they are? Does it even make a difference to humans in the big picture? As long as they can identify the ones with whom they can reproduce, isn't that all that really matters? In the oceans and on land, that never seems to be a problem.....they all reproduce "according to their kind", just as it says in Genesis.

Demanding a scientific definition to things that didn't have one, and didn't need one is a little silly. We all know what "kinds" are within the broad range that they describe. Who cares if a Panda isn't a bear? Who cares if a Koala isn't one either? In the big scheme of things, I believe that the Creator gave us intelligence and a thirst for knowledge....he knew we would find these things out for ourselves as well as uncovering many other secrets locked away in the microscopic world and in the universe.

The info about the author of the article was interesting.....

"Dr. Pennilyn (Penny) Higgins is a Research Associate in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Rochester. Most of her research revolves around studying the chemistry of fossil mammal teeth to learn about the environments in which the animals lived and what they might have been eating while living there. She is particularly interested in episodes of rapid climate change in the geologic record. In addition to doing research and managing a geochemistry laboratory, Penny also teaches courses in introductory geology and paleontology at the University of Rochester. When she's not in the office or laboratory, Penny can be spotted writing fiction, practicing the western martial arts, or just screwing around on Twitter."

Perhaps writing fiction becomes a problem when trying to differentiate facts?

 

[Deeje]

There are always going to be elements in both science and religion whereas some will distort reality. But the realms of science and religion are not the same even though there are some areas of overlap.

If I as a scientist lie about whatever, there'll be a lineup of other scientists to correct me. However, in most cases, the same is not true in the area of religion because almost all religious beliefs are unfalsifiable. I can invent the most preposterous religion "fact", and no one is likely to be able to disprove me.

In the scientific world, what is usually debated are the details, not the validity of the subject itself. The debates always occur withing the parameters of the theory rather than outside of it...true? Science does not debate the science of evolution itself....so there is consensus.

Religious beliefs are just that...beliefs. But they are not unfounded or unsupportable. The natural world appears to be telling two stories and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth and who is distorting the facts. Those removed from the natural world are often blinded by the science, where as those who live in more rural areas, tend to see God in nature everywhere....especially in the form of new life, and how abundantly food is supplied for all creatures.

Doesn't there come a time when you really have to open your eyes and see what has been made? If we had no senses to appreciate all this beauty, then what would be the point of it? Evolution is an empty belief that stifles hope and reduces humans to the level of animals.

So, in religion what there is is belief-- faith, if you would prefer. But science cannot and does not work the same way because we live or die on objectively-derived evidence, which is obviously very different with religion.

It is indeed very different....the Bible says we actually live or die depending on belief in the Creator, so accepting that evolution is true, cancels out any future life prospects completely. For those who say there is no God, means that this life is all there is. Who could be truly happy believing that?...most especially when the twilight years are rapidly approaching?

I think we each get carried away at times, and I plead "guilty!" to that as well. However, thank you for your kind words on this, and I enjoy your demeanor as well.

Its a very emotive topic for some.

I gotta tell you a true story of what happened in my anthropology course about 30-some years ago.

I used to bring in a Baptist deacon each semester to my classes to talk about I.D.-- not because I had to but because I felt it was important for my students to get that take as well. It was strictly non-confrontational as I would not challenge him at all during his presentation. We got along so well that we became good friends.

Anyhow, after finishing his presentations one of the times he came in, he thanked me for allowing to do this, and he said that he felt that it was very important for students to hear the "other side". I told him thanks, and then I said that if he ever wanted me to give the "other side" to people in his congregation that I would be more than willing to do so. He looked at me, and gave me a sheepish smile back. Needless to say, I never got the invite.

So, this is a problem I have with those who feel that students need to be exposed to I.D., and it's that through my experience it's just a one-way street with them, namely that they say that but they really don't believe it should apply to themselves. However, I am not saying that you do this.

Take care.

Interesting story....and I can see your point. Having said that, can you tell me what child is not exposed to the teaching of evolution in most levels of public education, and have been for many decades now? The same can't be said for religious belief, phased out of public education some time ago. If a household does not subscribe to a faith of any sort, then their children will never be exposed to belief in a higher power at all....except to perhaps know that religious beliefs exist, but they will most likely never want to explore something that they have been taught to view as nonsense.

You take care too.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

so much observed and documented reality

For organisms evolving into higher taxa? You're kidding, right?

 

[ArtieE]

Thank you for the link......but what does it prove? The Genesis account was not produced as a science journal written for those with science degrees. It was written for ordinary people with eyes to see what the Creator had produced. Do the animals care what "kind" they are? Does it even make a difference to humans in the big picture? As long as they can identify the ones with whom they can reproduce, isn't that all that really matters? In the oceans and on land, that never seems to be a problem.....they all reproduce "according to their kind", just as it says in Genesis.

Please list the different "kinds" and tell us which criteria you use to distinguish between the different "kinds".

 

[savagewind]

Please list the different "kinds" and tell us which criteria you use to distinguish between the different "kinds".

I think I can see what point you might be making. If "kinds" means able to reproduce then there would be too many kinds to ever fit on Noah's Ark.

I have already told her that to teach Noah went preaching to invite people to believe in Jehovah so that they could be welcome on the ark is a ridiculous notion. Isn't it?

 

[savagewind]

Noah: "Dear Lord God, how many people should I prepare for?"
The Lord God; "Just the eight of you".
Noah; "the girls' men don't seem so very different that all the rest."
The Lord God; "Just the eight of you."
Noah; "what if some believe me and want to be saved too?"
The Lord God; "Just the eight of you."
Noah; "Please, Lord God, tell me why I should be preaching repentance then!"

 

[savagewind]

According to the Jehovah's Witness theory of everything, it might have been possible for some head of a family to agree with Noah and then to build his own vehicle for the saving of his family.

Now, compare that to their belief that Jehovah God communicates selectively* the way he does.

The design for the ark was given to Noah to accomplish. If others were to repent, would God have given them a design also? That would be something new. Wouldn't it?

*Only, only, only to the governing body of Jehovah's Witness who have declared that THEY alone are the modern day Noah.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me just refresh my memory.....and we will see who is exposing who.

I'm not sure why you ignored all of what I posted to you only to re-post something you wrote earlier and I had already commented on. Nevertheless, all you've done is re-confirm what I said before. For example...

"At the heart of evolutionary theory is

the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time."

The Bible supports the view that we are living on an old earth and that life has existed on this planet for eons of time.
Evolution does not want to touch abiogenesis for very good reasons......its not their problem. They somehow assume that how life changed is so much more important than how it first appeared. But if the first cause of all life on Earth is an intelligent and powerful Creator, then they pretend that it doesn't matter.....but the whole theory would be rendered baseless if that was the case. Saying I don't know if there is a God, or I don't believe in him, doesn't necessarily make him non-existent.

So your response is "But the Bible says....", which further shows that what I said about you was accurate. This is nothing more than science reaching conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs, and you objecting from that basis only.

"

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact.

If "interpreted evidence" is "overwhelming", it is only so to those who believe that it ever happened. It is a suggestion with lots of conjecture and assumption however, not proven facts. The "evidence" just as easily points to Intelligent Design.

Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago."

Yes, just two short centuries ago, man came to the conclusion that he was too intelligent to believe in God. That probably had more to do with the ignorance of 'the church' than the intelligence of scientists. But what an evolutionary triumph! Or perhaps it was an exercise of pure human imagination of the kind that they accuse ID'ers of inventing?

I find that the Bible attests to a long history of life...just not a long history of human life. There is no real evidence for a slow evolution of life from amoeba to huge land and aquatic animals, it's just that science interprets its "evidence" to fit its pet theory. It has fossil evidence that these creatures existed at some time, but not not a shred of evidence that one evolved from another. The evolution part is pure guesswork.There is not a single thing that links evolution's "chain" but wishful thinking.

Here again we see how when presented with scientific conclusions, your response is basically "But the Bible says...", again revealing just what this is about. Also, you repeat your rather confident assertions about the scientific data, which brings us to a question you ignored from my last post....

How do you know what the evidence is and whether the related analyses and conclusions are valid? You have no background in science and you admitted the jargon is over your head, so exactly what is the basis for your assertions?

 

[Jose Fly]

For organisms evolving into higher taxa? You're kidding, right?

If you're asking for examples where populations have been observed to evolve across "higher taxa" lines, sure.....as long as you agree that taxonomic families are "higher taxa".

 

[metis]

The debates always occur withing the parameters of the theory rather than outside of it...true? Science does not debate the science of evolution itself....so there is consensus.

At this time this is basically true, but it wasn't always that way. There's simply no reason to debate the basic fact that life has evolved any more than there is a need to debate the fact that planet Earth has one moon.

Religious beliefs are just that...beliefs. But they are not unfounded or unsupportable.

Well, then going by that, all religious beliefs must be valid. So, with that, should I assume that you believe in the Gita much the same as you believe in the Bible?

Evolution is an empty belief that stifles hope and reduces humans to the level of animals.

Overstated. All organisms are not the same, nor do they all have the same capabilities. And my gradual acceptance of the ToE certainly didn't leave me with no hope.

It is indeed very different....the Bible says we actually live or die depending on belief in the Creator, so accepting that evolution is true, cancels out any future life prospects completely.

Again, how many times must you be told that the two are not mutually exclusive. What you are now doing is adding "teachings" to the bible that simply are not there. So, how can you say you believe in the Bible and yet fabricate doctrines that are not found within it?

The ToE is never mentioned in the Bible and most Christian theologians and most Christians do believe that one can believe in the basic ToE and also God & Jesus.

The same can't be said for religious belief, phased out of public education some time ago.

So, which religious beliefs do you believe should be taught? Yours? Catholics? Judaism? Hinduism? the theological beliefs of ISIS? Which?

 

[Deeje]

I'm not sure why you ignored all of what I posted to you only to re-post something you wrote earlier and I had already commented on. Nevertheless, all you've done is re-confirm what I said before.

Science is a 'religion' to some....we see the same passion and faith as we see in believers of ID. The Bible is one source of our information and true science fills in a lot of blanks for us. We have no problem with science's contribution to our knowledge of the natural world....except when they attribute something amazing to mindless evolution. I love watching David Attenborough documentaries, but mostly with the sound off.

I will demonstrate what I mean here....

Perhaps you can tell me how a brainless plant can 'adapt' itself to mimic a female wasp on its flower, in order to get itself pollinated? Not only does it resemble a female wasp, but it exudes a pheromone that also fools the wasp into thinking its a receptive lady. Now you might want to suggest a lot of things about that scenario, but they suggest purpose and design to me.....not the blind forces of evolution. This is symbiosis which relates more to deliberate design that chance mutations in two unrelated biological species.

So your response is "But the Bible says....", which further shows that what I said about you was accurate. This is nothing more than science reaching conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs, and you objecting from that basis only.

You have your source of information, I have mine. You trust your sources, I trust mine. You have your interpretation of evidence...I do too. I do not see science's interpretation the same way you do. You are free to dismiss mine.

Here again we see how when presented with scientific conclusions, your response is basically "But the Bible says...", again revealing just what this is about. Also, you repeat your rather confident assertions about the scientific data, which brings us to a question you ignored from my last post....

How do you know what the evidence is and whether the related analyses and conclusions are valid? You have no background in science and you admitted the jargon is over your head, so exactly what is the basis for your assertions?

I can see very clearly what science is "suggesting" about a lot of things....but the full truth of the matter is....I reject the suggestions as being totally unsubstantiated, and I can easily substitute the argument for intelligent design in things like the video posted above. You don't seem to realize that evolutionary science is knee capped at its very foundation. It cannot even get off the ground unless it interprets its evidence in a certain way. Bias will always steer the interpretation in their 'suggested' direction. Diagrams and illustrations fill in the gaps, but no one seems to question these 'illustrations'....its almost as if they are accepted a s photographic evidence.

What do the fossils really say? They tell us that the creatures existed...that is all. You can suggest any and all kinds of conjecture into the equation, but you have no way to tell if all those creatures were not simply animals or insects that came and went in the course of creation. You have nothing to link them in a line of decent except assumptions about morphing and similarities in bone structure and DNA. None of that rules out a Creator.

Science had a hypothesis, that came from human suggestion in the first place.....it turned into a theory, which became a substitute for substantiated fact. The truth is, there is no substantiation other than what science "interprets" from the way they read their "evidence". I do not accept the conclusions they reach.....and neither do a lot of other people. The very fact that this thread is still going, proves that people want to be sure....there is a lot at stake for us believers. So we need to test our beliefs to see if they stack up against yours...I believe they do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Doesn't there come a time when you really have to open your eyes and see what has been made? If we had no senses to appreciate all this beauty, then what would be the point of it? Evolution is an empty belief that stifles hope and reduces humans to the level of animals.

Funny that you should post all that beauty -- and then trash it be saying "reduces humans to the level of animals." It's what we are -- as different from all those animals you pictured as they are from each other, but animals all the same. In every way.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you're asking for examples where populations have been observed to evolve across "higher taxa" lines, sure.....as long as you agree that taxonomic families are "higher taxa".

Divergences from families are easy to see. But to deduce lineages from a common ancestor -- it's racked with disputations. It's farcical.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Now you might want to suggest a lot of things about that scenario, but they suggest purpose and design to me.....not the blind forces of evolution.

And the slightly less sensible design decisions?
The Babirusa, whose tusks will actually grow back and pierce it's own head if it doesn't grind them enough?
The Ichneumon, who doesn't feed on it's prey (it eats nectar), but instead paralyses them, impregnates them with eggs, with those eggs hatching to feed on the still alive host?

And then the dumb design decisions on otherwise more defensible creatures, such as humans and giraffes.
I mean...if you want to see a strange design decision, spend a few moments googling 'hyena clitoris'. That's always a fun one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science is a 'religion' to some....we see the same passion and faith as we see in believers of ID. The Bible is one source of our information and true science fills in a lot of blanks for us.

Thanks for again illustrating my point about this being a religious issue for you.

We have no problem with science's contribution to our knowledge of the natural world....except when they attribute something amazing to mindless evolution.

Right, exactly as I said. You have no problem with science, until they reach conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs, at which point you reject those conclusions simply because they conflict with your beliefs.

Perhaps you can tell me how a brainless plant can 'adapt' itself to mimic a female wasp on its flower, in order to get itself pollinated? Not only does it resemble a female wasp, but it exudes a pheromone that also fools the wasp into thinking its a receptive lady. Now you might want to suggest a lot of things about that scenario, but they suggest purpose and design to me.....not the blind forces of evolution. This is symbiosis which relates more to deliberate design that chance mutations in two unrelated biological species.

Why would I attempt to explain something to you that you've already declared you won't accept? Let's be honest here....as long as a conclusion conflicts with your religious beliefs, you will reject it...period.

You have your source of information, I have mine. You trust your sources, I trust mine. You have your interpretation of evidence...I do too. I do not see science's interpretation the same way you do. You are free to dismiss mine.

Flat-earth geocentrists say the exact same thing.

I can see very clearly what science is "suggesting" about a lot of things....but the full truth of the matter is....I reject the suggestions as being totally unsubstantiated, and I can easily substitute the argument for intelligent design in things like the video posted above. You don't seem to realize that evolutionary science is knee capped at its very foundation. It cannot even get off the ground unless it interprets its evidence in a certain way. Bias will always steer the interpretation in their 'suggested' direction. Diagrams and illustrations fill in the gaps, but no one seems to question these 'illustrations'....its almost as if they are accepted a s photographic evidence.

What do the fossils really say? They tell us that the creatures existed...that is all. You can suggest any and all kinds of conjecture into the equation, but you have no way to tell if all those creatures were not simply animals or insects that came and went in the course of creation. You have nothing to link them in a line of decent except assumptions about morphing and similarities in bone structure and DNA. None of that rules out a Creator.

Science had a hypothesis, that came from human suggestion in the first place.....it turned into a theory, which became a substitute for substantiated fact. The truth is, there is no substantiation other than what science "interprets" from the way they read their "evidence". I do not accept the conclusions they reach.....and neither do a lot of other people. The very fact that this thread is still going, proves that people want to be sure....there is a lot at stake for us believers. So we need to test our beliefs to see if they stack up against yours...I believe they do.

All of that, and you still didn't answer the question. And given that you just made even more authoritative assertions about science, that gives even more importance to the question....

How do you know? You have no background or experience in science, and you admit that the jargon is over your head. So how do you know what the evidence is and whether the related analyses and conclusions are valid?

 

[Jose Fly]

Divergences from families are easy to see. But to deduce lineages from a common ancestor -- it's racked with disputations. It's farcical.

Why, because you say so? Why should I take your assertions about evolutionary biology as unquestioned gospel?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why, because you say so? Why should I take your assertions about evolutionary biology as unquestioned gospel?

You're right....It's so much more reasonable to assume that plants and animals all descended from a common ancestor (despite the great diversity of body plans) as opposed to being created separately!

Let me ask you, was our 'common ancestor', the progenitor of all organisms, a species itself that diverged into the 36 phyla extant today?

Honestly, it's much more reasonable to expect phyla to diverge into species, not the opposite! Phylogenetic science is backwards.

You'll believe what you want, anyway....In spite of the evidences.

 

[Olinda]

Thank you for the link......but what does it prove?

A complete definition of 'kind' has been asked for several times, because you have offered your 'alternative' to the accepted ToE and that would be an essential part of it. Without a definition, your 'theory' cannot be tested. Whatever is observed, can be explained by stretching or contracting 'kind' at will.
Fitting all the 'kinds' on the Ark is, of course, another problem.

Demanding a scientific definition to things that didn't have one, and didn't need one is a little silly. We all know what "kinds" are within the broad range that they describe. Who cares if a Panda isn't a bear? Who cares if a Koala isn't one either? In the big scheme of things, I believe that the Creator gave us intelligence and a thirst for knowledge....he knew we would find these things out for ourselves as well as uncovering many other secrets locked away in the microscopic world and in the universe.

Then I guess all of science is "a little silly" to you because it works by posing clearly defined theories and then testing them. If you can't do that, you can't do science.

The info about the author of the article was interesting.....

"Dr. Pennilyn (Penny) Higgins is a Research Associate in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Rochester. Most of her research revolves around studying the chemistry of fossil mammal teeth to learn about the environments in which the animals lived and what they might have been eating while living there. She is particularly interested in episodes of rapid climate change in the geologic record. In addition to doing research and managing a geochemistry laboratory, Penny also teaches courses in introductory geology and paleontology at the University of Rochester. When she's not in the office or laboratory, Penny can be spotted writing fiction, practicing the western martial arts, or just screwing around on Twitter."

Perhaps writing fiction becomes a problem when trying to differentiate facts?

Ad hominem, but why? If definitions are so trivial, why did you bother? And which facts could the author of the article not differentiate?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What you are now doing is adding "teachings" to the bible that simply are not there. So, how can you say you believe in the Bible and yet fabricate doctrines that are not found within it?

Metis, are you serious?!! You know the Bible holds out the hope for future life! Deeje isn't fabricating anything.

Or did I misunderstand your quote of her post?

 

[Deeje]

At this time this is basically true, but it wasn't always that way. There's simply no reason to debate the basic fact that life has evolved any more than there is a need to debate the fact that planet Earth has one moon.

I don't think anyone can deny adaptation as it is clearly indicated in science experiments, and so, is a somewhat provable aspect where it can be demonstrated in real time. Species can adapt to their surroundings as Darwin observed on the Galapagos with the finches and iguanas etc. But that is where science fact ends and science fiction begins. To use adaptation as proof for something that is not provable, but is just guessing at what "might have" happened when nobody was around to document it is pure speculation....the only one present was the Creator....and he documented all of it in a book. It is written in simple language, but it entails the essential "kinds" and when they were created. Earth is obviously very ancient, and so are a lot of creatures, but mankind is not. How did Moses know that man was the last to appear on earth? How could he know the order of creation without divine instruction?

Well, then going by that, all religious beliefs must be valid. So, with that, should I assume that you believe in the Gita much the same as you believe in the Bible?

Not necessarily so. To know the Creator is to know his personality. Down through time, he has always tested his human servants by seeing how they respond to adversity and freedom of choice. He does not cause the adversity, but he allows it because it gives every one of us an opportunity to demonstrate the strength or weakness of our faith as a result of free will. Jesus' followers particularly were seen by the majority as some Jewish cult with a charismatic leader who seemed intent to lead Israel astray. Israel seemed oblivious to the fact that the religious leaders had already done that. (Matthew 23:37-39) All who wanted to follow Christ were going to suffer persecution of some sort, be it physical or even emotional as they were routinely ridiculed by the learned elite. Jesus did not choose educated men to be his apostles because he knew what knowledge can do to some people.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3:
"We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him."

That reinforces an important aspect of faith I believe.....not that we know God, so much as he knows us. He wants to invite us to be citizens in his "new earth" but he needs us to qualify...he tells us how to in the Bible, but he will never force us to do anything against our will. This is the hope that the Bible holds out.....and its one that gives me hope.

All organisms are not the same, nor do they all have the same capabilities. And my gradual acceptance of the ToE certainly didn't leave me with no hope.

If you have no hope beyond this life, then what personal hope do you have metis? Do you believe that you will ever see lost loved ones again? To enjoy good health and never age? If you die, to be awakened from the sleep of death to resume life here on earth with eternity in front of you to learn new things forever? To live and work in paradise conditions for all time to come as caretakers of this planet? Can man promise such things? NO! But the Creator can. Can you deny that collectively most of us want these things to be true?

Again, how many times must you be told that the two are not mutually exclusive. What you are now doing is adding "teachings" to the bible that simply are not there. So, how can you say you believe in the Bible and yet fabricate doctrines that are not found within it?

Hebrews 11:6:
"Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him."

John 17:3
"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ"

The qualifications for life are right there. But it is up to the individual to accept or to deny this. (2 Peter 3:13)

The ToE is never mentioned in the Bible and most Christian theologians and most Christians do believe that one can believe in the basic ToE and also God & Jesus.

Most Christian theologians, and many who claim to believe in the Creator are willing to compromise their faith if it means saving face with the men of science. The Bible does not teach theology, nor does it advocate accepting God-dishonoring beliefs in order to appear to be up with the ideas of learned humans. Having the courage of your convictions is not easy when confronted with the evidence that science publishes.....but is all of it really true? I believe it is mostly fabricated by vivid imaginations and very little real evidence.

So, which religious beliefs do you believe should be taught? Yours? Catholics? Judaism? Hinduism? the theological beliefs of ISIS? Which?

All we have to do is just stick to the teachings of Jesus Christ, IMO. If you stand by what he teaches, without compromise, you will have the peace of knowing that there is a future that is worth looking forward to....one where the whole planet will benefit.

That is what make this life worth living.