Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

You are assuming the role of being God, and I would suggest that a far better approach in the context of what Jesus' taught is to "judge ye not...". Why are you assuming that role? .

She is reflecting those who do.

Daniel 11:36 and then look up "against". It doesn't actually say that. It means unto or toward.

 

[savagewind]

When someone says, "God will do what we say God will do", that isn't speaking against God but וְעַ֖ל God.

Why not look at it yourself? Hebrew Concordance: wə·‘al -- 512 Occurrences

 

[metis]

Daniel 11:36 and then look up "against". It doesn't actually say that. It means unto or toward.

When someone says, "God will do what we say God will do", that isn't speaking against God but וְעַ֖ל God.

In both cases above, I'm really not sure what you're saying, so maybe can you clarify?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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.



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.

That's hilarious coming from someone who refuses to accept the photographic evidence presented to them.

The rest of this post is a broken record, at this point. I really wish you could figure out how to take in and learn new information.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

You didn't answer my question.

Basically you're telling me and others that when it comes to the history of life on earth, we should all accept your say-so over the consensus conclusions of scientists.....scientists who go through the trouble of writing up and publishing all the data they collected, their methods, their analyses, their results, and the conclusions they reached. You're saying we should ignore all that and just go with whatever you tell us is true.

So again, the question is....why? Why should I or anyone else take your say-so as unquestioned gospel?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Yes, because DNA and comparative genomics demonstrate that.

 

[savagewind]

In both cases above, I'm really not sure what you're saying, so maybe can you clarify?

It is believed that the scripture is about an enemy (against) God. Can it not be about an assumed friend?

Matthew 7:22

 

[savagewind]

Daniel 11:36

“And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against OVER the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done.

Strong's Hebrew: 5921. עַל (al) -- upon, above, over

Over which means going beyond the order of Jehovah.

 

[savagewind]

To teach that a person must believe a certain way goes beyond what is written here.

Acts of the Apostles 10:35

To teach that people are supposed to believe a certain way (their way) is to go OVER Jehovah.
Daniel 11:36

 

[Jose Fly]

How do you separate creation from the Creator? Of course its a religious issue for me. I make no apology for being educated by my Creator, whom I believe to be the greatest scientist in existence.

So then why do you keep acting like your position is science-based? Why do you try and critique the work of scientists, even though you basically have no idea what they're doing? If this truly is a religious issue for you, why not treat it as such?

Perhaps I have not made my point clear enough for you Jose Fly.....I reject the conclusions because they are based purely on conjecture, not real science.

That brings up the same question I keep asking and you keep ignoring.....how do you know? You have no background or experience in science and you admit that the jargon is over your head, so how in the world are you at all qualified to say anything about the validity of scientific conclusions?

Why wouldn't you attempt to demonstrate to the readers here a valid explanation for why orchid wasps and their orchids can form a symbiotic relationship that benefits only the flower....leaving behind a very frustrated wasp. I am sure we would all be very interested.....in layman's terms of course.

Because it's more than obvious that you operate under the same sort of framework as "AnswersinGenesis", i.e., where anything that disagrees with scripture is automatically wrong, period. Clearly an evolutionary explanation for symbiosis "disagrees with scripture" to you, which means you will reject any such explanation out of hand (just as you've done already). Trying to explain something to someone who's already decided that it's wrong no matter what is an obvious waste of time, and it misses the entire basis for our disagreement.

Above you recognized that this is a religious issue for you, so why would you be at all interested in a scientific explanation for how anything evolved?

I know as much about my beliefs as you do about yours. What makes you think science has to be right?

What I see makes me think that ID is the more reasonable conclusion to reach, given the actual evidence, rather than only the suggested stuff.

And you still didn't answer the question. Look, this is very simple.....you've posted a lot of accusations against scientists and their work, even though you have no background or experience in science and the jargon is over your head. That leads to an obvious issue: How do you know what the scientific evidence is and whether the related analyses and conclusions are valid?

That's it. All you have to do is explain how you are able to evaluate and critique the work of scientists.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, because DNA and comparative genomics demonstrate that.

Why? Because they're all made from one material, DNA? That indicates they all come from one Source, the Builder.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why? Because they're all made from one material, DNA? That indicates they all come from one Source, the Builder.

Because all living organisms share some amount of DNA that reflects their degree of relatedness, for starters.

 

[savagewind]

In both cases above, I'm really not sure what you're saying, so maybe can you clarify?

You said:

You are assuming the role of being God, ...... Why are you assuming that role? .......
IOW, let me recommend that you stop trying to be God or assuming that you can judge others. If you don't, then you are violating Jesus' teachings by trying to take over God's position.

Which caused me to remember the prophecy which says that someone would lift himself up over God. I looked it up. As it is written, it looks like someone opposed to God will do it, so I look up the word, "against". It usually does not mean against.

I am certain there are no true Jehovah's Witnesses who are against Jehovah, but if you can see another meaning of the word which was translated against, the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to fit the description.

The king, "will exalt himself". THEY say Jesus chose them to teach us "the truth" and that they are even mentioned in the Bible personally. It says that he will "grow great" and that is what the Jehovah's Witnesses work at day and night. They really believe that all peoples must become Jehovah's Witness to live for God's will be done consciously.

I realize that I am not on topic, but it wasn't me going off. There is a judicial word for it that I can't remember.

Actually, I think I know what the word is, but spelling it right is another matter.

 

[metis]

You said:


Which caused me to remember the prophecy which says that someone would lift himself up over God. I looked it up. As it is written, it looks like someone opposed to God will do it, so I look up the word, "against". It usually does not mean against.

I am certain there are no true Jehovah's Witnesses who are against Jehovah, but if you can see another meaning of the word which was translated against, the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to fit the description.

The king, "will exalt himself". THEY say Jesus chose them to teach us "the truth" and that they are even mentioned in the Bible personally. It says that he will "grow great" and that is what the Jehovah's Witnesses work at day and night. They really believe that all peoples must become Jehovah's Witness to live for God's will be done consciously.

I realize that I am not on topic, but it wasn't me going off. There is a judicial word for it that I can't remember.

Actually, I think I know what the word is, but spelling it right is another matter.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Shad]

Where did Deeje "demand" anything?
Is this a prevarication, perchance?

By distortiing natural selection into speciation then presenting it. One does not need to state the word "demand" for the concept to be present.

 

[savagewind]

I got it! The word is precedent.

an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

To post about the appearance of someone playing God is the precedent that I may use to go off topic.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because all living organisms share some amount of DNA that reflects their degree of relatedness, for starters.

So, we share more DNA with bananas, than the fruit fly. I'm supposed to believe, based on this evidence, that we are closer cousins to a plant, than to an arthropod.

I'm not that gullible!

 

[ArtieE]

So, we share more DNA with bananas, than the fruit fly. I'm supposed to believe, based on this evidence, that we are closer cousins to a plant, than to an arthropod.

I'm not that gullible!

We share 60 percent with fruit flies 50 with bananas.

 

[Olinda]

As soon as my Creator gives me this definition (apart from the one in Genesis) I'll pass it on...OK?

OK.

It seems like a no-brainer to me. We can see with our own eyes what naturally mates with its own "kind" in nature. That is pretty easy to define isn't it?

The article was actually about why it's not quite so simple. "Natural" mating behaviour covers a lot of ground. If a wasp attempts to mate with a flower, are they the same 'kind'?

Science seems to have no trouble stretching its own imagination "at will". Look at all those diagrams and illustrations. . .

I'm understanding you to say that if science does it (or you think science does it) it's ok to do the same? Or have I misunderstood?

BTW, I read the link @Hockeycowboy supplied. After all your scorn at diagrams of evolutionary relationships, I had to chuckle at the 'artist's impression' of Noah's Ark. . . complete with a giraffe peeking over the top.

Only for humans with a limited view of what the Creator is capable of doing. Since it was he who gave Noah the specification of the ark in great detail, we can assume that he knew what he was doing. It was also he who brought the animals to the ark, so it wasn't Noah who chose them. Nor does it specify that God did not bless the arrangement after the flood was over. Why do you want to place limits on a being who has none? He isn't human you know.

Yup, I know. I'm sure the topic has been covered many times and if you can always specify a possible 'miracle', there's no point in going over it again.

You can't be serious....."testing them"? By what means can science test evolution? It has tests for adaptation, that can be observed in a laboratory, but no test exists that documents a slow process of evolution from one living thing morphing into another over millions of years....all science has is guesswork based on imagined processes. There is no proof that these processes ever took place.

Of course I'm serious. Every time scientists design and execute an experiment that involves the ToE, they state in advance what they would expect to see if the theory is upheld, or if it is not. It's called falsification.
For example, "a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes".
And that turns out to be the case.
Another example is the discovery of Tiktaalik, predicted and located by assuming the ToE is correct.
In fact, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, the ToE has NEVER been falsified.
My source, btw, is 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution; the quoted sentence is in 1.1, 2nd paragraph.

Now I know that doesn't rule out alternate explanations, like "God did it that way". But while you are free to prefer such an explanation, it is irrelevant to science, not a logical alternative. Simply because it cannot be tested, or falsified. Which comes back to my problem with undefined "kinds".

 

[Deeje]

So then why do you keep acting like your position is science-based? Why do you try and critique the work of scientists, even though you basically have no idea what they're doing? If this truly is a religious issue for you, why not treat it as such?

I do.....but I also do not separate the creation from its Creator. I see that the Creator of all things is also the Creator of science....the very thing you study. You just eliminate him to give creation a different source......it just created itself.....which is equally as 'ridiculous' as you think we believe.....if you understand what science is actually suggesting, the whole scenario becomes farcical.

I have an inbuilt need to appreciate what the Creator has made and a desire to express it. I realize that not everyone is spiritually minded, but just because you can divorce yourself from the Creator and deny his existence, doesn't mean everyone can, or should. We each have a choice. The purpose of this thread is to show people that there is actually a choice because science is not quite accurate in its first premise. To accept that evolution ever took place, except in the fertile imagination of the educated ones who felt that religion was simply "the opium of the masses", is to understand that science is without a single shred of real evidence to support what it suggests.

That brings up the same question I keep asking and you keep ignoring.....how do you know? You have no background or experience in science and you admit that the jargon is over your head, so how in the world are you at all qualified to say anything about the validity of scientific conclusions?

How do you know that what science suggests is based on an accurate first premise? How do you know that their interpretation of the evidence is not so skewed towards their own biased ideas that they can't see past them, and will find a plausible answer to satisfy their own need to be "scientific"?

It's OK to assume something, but its not OK to pass that assumption off as fact. Circumstantial evidence is not the same as actual evidence...it can easily be misinterpreted. People have been executed on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and later proven not guilty.

Because it's more than obvious that you operate under the same sort of framework as "AnswersinGenesis", i.e., where anything that disagrees with scripture is automatically wrong, period. Clearly an evolutionary explanation for symbiosis "disagrees with scripture" to you, which means you will reject any such explanation out of hand (just as you've done already). Trying to explain something to someone who's already decided that it's wrong no matter what is an obvious waste of time, and it misses the entire basis for our disagreement.

Nice dodge.

I was asking for the benefit of the readers here, not me. Do you ever consider that others might be interested in how plausible your explanation might be? Just because I might find it amusing, doesn't mean that others will not appreciate it. You see, your argument works both ways. You will never listen to arguments that you consider to be beneath your dignity to accept.

So go ahead, give it your best shot, explain how two completely separate biological species can form a symbiotic relationship where only one is benefited?......but try to keep it simple for those without a science degree...OK?

Above you recognized that this is a religious issue for you, so why would you be at all interested in a scientific explanation for how anything evolved?

To me they are one and the same issue. Science is just an understanding of the mechanics of creation....although I think it needs to discover the real mechanic, subscribe to the manual, and learn from the Master.

And you still didn't answer the question. Look, this is very simple.....you've posted a lot of accusations against scientists and their work, even though you have no background or experience in science and the jargon is over your head. That leads to an obvious issue: How do you know what the scientific evidence is and whether the related analyses and conclusions are valid?

I am assuming that the information posted for the benefit of high school students and 'ordinary' folk, is enough to determine the validity of the whole scenario? Isn't this what science hopes will prompt students to take on the study of the sciences in more depth? I am saying that if your first premise is wrong, then everything you build on it, no matter which branch of science to choose, will be equally flawed, so even at a rudimentary level it is apparent that science makes a lot of guesses (supposition...conjecture) about a lot of things, but calls it fact. That is not honest IMO.

That's it. All you have to do is explain how you are able to evaluate and critique the work of scientists.

It's easy really...all you have to do is look at what they suggest and see that it is even more farfetched, requiring more faith with less evidence, than ID supporters do. No amount of scientific jargon is going to make a suggestion into a fact.....is it?