Just Accidental?

[Shad]

From where did the FORCE which started the motion of everything come?

First Law of Motion (all the universe and life is in motion).

Newton



Is Newton wrong?

Which does not apply to a God as Newton identified a force which causes motion. Which makes your God a something not God. Also you got the law wrong as it motion is not the natural state. However Special Relativity shows that this law is not a universal as Newton used an absolute time reference frame which does not apply in modern quantum mechanics. So yes he was wrong as he attempted to state a universal which was false.

 

[Olinda]

I wonder how even a 5 year old can test gravity?

Do we know its a fact? I think so.

A 5 year old can test the Theory of Gravity. . . but not prove it.

The "abundant evidence" you speak of is interpreted by those who can make fossils speak a language that God never taught them....a language that academia speaks, but the general population can't really understand.

Many posters have pointed out that evidence for the ToE extends far beyond fossils. Anyone who chooses can learn to understand scientific terminology. . . not only "academia" speaks it. I'm no academic, but have no difficulty learning about whatever interests me.

What double standard? True science can prove what it says and can demonstrate it.

Really? Then please provide proof of the internal structure of an atom. A link will be fine.

Evolution cannot be demonstrated in any way. Science saying that there is a link between this fossil and the next one is not based on facts...it is based on supposition.

Yet again, all the evidence to date supports the ToE, and none contradicts it. If you have reason to believe otherwise, I'd be very interested.

Like I said...teach it as a theory, not a fact.

Anywhere science is taught, the distinction between scientific theory and fact is made quite clear.

The difference between science fact and science fiction is man's imagination and his ability to sell his point of view to others...it's called marketing. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound like it could be.

I understand that you believe this, but I've seen no sign of a conspiracy. The leap from "The ToE is supported with a lot of evidence" to "This proves that God does not exist" is neither made in any reputable scientific writing, nor by any scientific expert speaking in her/his field. What non-experts make of it is entirely up to them.

Now, could you please tell me how to distinguish between what you call 'true' and 'false' science?

 

[Deeje]

A 5 year old can test the Theory of Gravity. . . but not prove it.

I think if he tried to fly like Superman and jumped off a second story balcony, that might be proof enough.

Waddyareckon?

Anyone can prove that gravity is true just by dropping something. You can't be serious.

Many posters have pointed out that evidence for the ToE extends far beyond fossils. Anyone who chooses can learn to understand scientific terminology. . . not only "academia" speaks it. I'm no academic, but have no difficulty learning about whatever interests me.

And that explains everything does it? The Bible is equally true for those of us who believe in ID....the proof is staring you all in the face but you all rail against it as if there is no evidence for Intelligent Design.

Its everywhere if you just open your eyes.

Accept evolution if you like....what have you got to lose.....?

? Then please provide proof of the internal structure of an atom. A link will be fine.

How about common sense....will that do?

Can you honestly tell me that scientists designing a nuclear reactor or an atomic weapon have not tested the power of the atom? Can they demonstrate that atoms exist? I think they can. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki proof enough? What about Fukushima?

Yet again, all the evidence to date supports the ToE, and none contradicts it. If you have reason to believe otherwise, I'd be very interested.

That would be because those who support the ToE are manufacturing evidence by misinterpreting what their fossils and DNA are telling them. It has no real evidence. It has supposition.....you do know the difference?

Anywhere science is taught, the distinction between scientific theory and fact is made quite clear.

Except in High School where kids are NOT told that evolution is just a theory and can never be proven....they leave school with the indoctrination that it is an established fact with tons of evidence to back it up. I have posted links to that effect, so stop the nonsense. The "facts" are all manufactured speculation.

I understand that you believe this, but I've seen no sign of a conspiracy. The leap from "The ToE is supported with a lot of evidence" to "This proves that God does not exist" is neither made in any reputable scientific writing, nor by any scientific expert speaking in her/his field. What non-experts make of it is entirely up to them.

Don't you just love experts? X = zero, and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure. If an "expert" has fallen for the base flaws of the ToE, then he is just as deluded as he assumes we are....

There are plenty of evolutionists who state quite categorically that God does not exist....experts and all.

Now, could you please tell me how to distinguish between what you call 'true' and 'false' science?

I never said true and false science...I said science fact verses science fiction. I think the term is pseudo-science. The definition of which is...."a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." This is what describes evolution to a tee.

That is what macro-evolution is to us. There is no scientific method to determine relationships between ancient fossils apart from similarities in their DNA. Which leads us to the nonsense stated earlier.....that we are genetically related to bananas and fruit flies.....seriously. and the closest relative we have to T-Rex is a chicken? I am trying to keep a straight face.

I thought this was a good quote.....from an article published in a Newspaper about T-Rex and his chicken cousins.....from one of your "experts".

"As somebody who studies dinosaurs for a living and teaches undergraduates about evolution and the history of life, I would say it is the single most important fact ever discovered by dinosaur palaeontologists.

When you look at a Tyrannosaurus rex and a chicken side-by-side, you can see the similarities. Both walk on two legs, both have scaly feet with sharp claws, and both have a big, brainy head perched at the end of a long, arched neck. Tyrannosaurs even had feathers, a bird-like lung which efficiently takes in oxygen during both inhalation and exhalation, and avian-like fast metabolism and stupendously fast growth rates.

But there is one obvious difference: Tyrannosaurus rex probably could have eaten several hundred fried chicken dinners without feeling full. The dinosaur was a whole lot bigger than a chicken and all other living birds for that matter."

Take a T-Rex and a chicken and you’ll see how dinosaurs shrank, survived and evolved into birds

And this is from someone who teaches others about evolution? I am still trying to keep a straight face.....

Is this guy for real?

 

[ArtieE]

You think that life is just a bunch of chemicals that can magically arrange themselves into all the life you see on earth?

No Deeje abiogenesists and evolutionists don't think anything magical or supernatural was involved. You are the one who believes in the magical supernatural explanation. Sometimes it's hard to keep a straight face reading your posts. Are you for real?

 

[Deeje]

No Deeje abiogenesists and evolutionists don't think anything magical or supernatural was involved. You are the one who believes in the magical supernatural explanation. Sometimes it's hard to keep a straight face reading your posts. Are you for real?

Oh don't tell me, let me guess...you think we are related to bananas and fruit flies too?

And T-Rex is related to a chicken.....?

I can see the resemblance.....

T Rex is 15-20 feet tall and a chicken is about 16 inches.....that is quite a lot of shrinkage don't you think?


A bit like Pakicetus and the whale.....only in reverse.....no imagination required eh?

See how easy it is to suggest something, provide a diagram, and then have people actually believe what is completely ridiculous? Scientists are supposed to be intelligent people....I am beginning to have serious doubts.

 

[ArtieE]

Oh don't tell me, let me guess...you think we are related to bananas and fruit flies too?

First you said and I quote: "You think that life is just a bunch of chemicals that can magically arrange themselves into all the life you see on earth?

"

Then I said: "No Deeje abiogenesists and evolutionists don't think anything magical or supernatural was involved. You are the one who believes in the magical supernatural explanation. Sometimes it's hard to keep a straight face reading your posts. Are you for real?"

So again: How can you possibly accuse abiogenesists and evolutionists of believing that a bunch of chemicals magically arranged themselves when you are the one believing in magic and the supernatural and not them?

 

[ArtieE]

Just for a laugh...
13+ Hilarious Explanations How God Created Animals

[God creating spiders]
"Make it have 8 legs"
Seems excessive but ok
"And 8 eyes"
You need to calm down a li-
"Give it a butt rope"

 

[SkepticThinker]

And what I have said all along is stop inferring that it is established fact when it isn't.

Its a theory...teach it as a theory....subject to change as early as tomorrow.

It is taught as a scientific theory. Your wish has been granted long ago.

True science does not go back 500,000,000 years and pretend it knows what happened.

It doesn't put words in the mouths of dead creatures as if what it makes them say is substantiated truth.

Do you catch my drift?

You have been badly contradicting yourself throughout this thread.

You say that scientists speak in conjecture and suggestion and don't actually know anything, it's all just guesswork.
Then in the next breath you'll say that science is rigid in dictating established fact and is not open to other suggestions.

Which is it?

You are asking about the unknowable ArtieE.....the Creator reveals very little about himself except his personality, his power and his purpose for creating us. Without a 'first cause', we know that in the material realm, nothing could exist. Why can't the Creator be that first cause? It had to be something, so why is it so hard to acknowledge it? Life can't just happen accidentally. If it did, we would still see it happening. But we all know that life comes from pre-existing life.....science knows this too but it doesn't stop it from pushing the idea that it must have popped out of nowhere.

Except for the creator. Apparently the creator can just happen accidentally.

Though what you mean by "happen accidentally" is anyone's guess.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You think that life is just a bunch of chemicals that can magically arrange themselves into all the life you see on earth?

And you really think that abiogenesists are really going to be able to duplicate the process?

....should we hold our breath waiting for them to succeed?

Your entire body is composed of chemicals that come together and interact, no magic required. What is so far-fetched about that?

Besides, scientists have already demonstrated long ago that it is at least possible for organic elements to form from inorganic elements.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think if he tried to fly like Superman and jumped off a second story balcony, that might be proof enough.

Waddyareckon?

Anyone can prove that gravity is true just by dropping something. You can't be serious.

And that explains everything does it? The Bible is equally true for those of us who believe in ID....the proof is staring you all in the face but you all rail against it as if there is no evidence for Intelligent Design.

Its everywhere if you just open your eyes.

Accept evolution if you like....what have you got to lose.....?



How about common sense....will that do?

Can you honestly tell me that scientists designing a nuclear reactor or an atomic weapon have not tested the power of the atom? Can they demonstrate that atoms exist? I think they can. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki proof enough? What about Fukushima?



That would be because those who support the ToE are manufacturing evidence by misinterpreting what their fossils and DNA are telling them. It has no real evidence. It has supposition.....you do know the difference?



Except in High School where kids are NOT told that evolution is just a theory and can never be proven....they leave school with the indoctrination that it is an established fact with tons of evidence to back it up. I have posted links to that effect, so stop the nonsense. The "facts" are all manufactured speculation.



Don't you just love experts? X = zero, and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure. If an "expert" has fallen for the base flaws of the ToE, then he is just as deluded as he assumes we are....

There are plenty of evolutionists who state quite categorically that God does not exist....experts and all.



I never said true and false science...I said science fact verses science fiction. I think the term is pseudo-science. The definition of which is...."a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." This is what describes evolution to a tee.

That is what macro-evolution is to us. There is no scientific method to determine relationships between ancient fossils apart from similarities in their DNA. Which leads us to the nonsense stated earlier.....that we are genetically related to bananas and fruit flies.....seriously. and the closest relative we have to T-Rex is a chicken? I am trying to keep a straight face.

I thought this was a good quote.....from an article published in a Newspaper about T-Rex and his chicken cousins.....from one of your "experts".

"As somebody who studies dinosaurs for a living and teaches undergraduates about evolution and the history of life, I would say it is the single most important fact ever discovered by dinosaur palaeontologists.

When you look at a Tyrannosaurus rex and a chicken side-by-side, you can see the similarities. Both walk on two legs, both have scaly feet with sharp claws, and both have a big, brainy head perched at the end of a long, arched neck. Tyrannosaurs even had feathers, a bird-like lung which efficiently takes in oxygen during both inhalation and exhalation, and avian-like fast metabolism and stupendously fast growth rates.

But there is one obvious difference: Tyrannosaurus rex probably could have eaten several hundred fried chicken dinners without feeling full. The dinosaur was a whole lot bigger than a chicken and all other living birds for that matter."

Take a T-Rex and a chicken and you’ll see how dinosaurs shrank, survived and evolved into birds

And this is from someone who teaches others about evolution? I am still trying to keep a straight face.....

Is this guy for real?

No. That will not do.

 

[metis]

Deeje (or whomever), where to you get your emoticons [or whatever they're called] from, and how do you get them to display here? I obviously access the ones available here at RF, but it appears that you're getting yours from some other source.

 

[savagewind]

Your entire body is composed of chemicals that come together and interact, no magic required. What is so far-fetched about that?

Besides, scientists have already demonstrated long ago that it is at least possible for organic elements to form from inorganic elements.

What is far-fetched to believe in is that all the necessary ingredients are present to interact. If only one of them was missing we wouldn't be wasting our time on the internet because we wouldn't exist.

 

[savagewind]

Deeje (or whomever), where to you get your emoticons [or whatever they're called] from, and how do you get them to display here? I obviously access the ones available here at RF, but it appears that you're getting yours from some other source.

Somebody has already asked her where she found those. When I looked up 'search Google for image' on one of them I got this BEAUTIFUL list, but it's not what you want.
pattern - Google Search

 

[metis]

Somebody has already asked her where she found those. When I looked up 'search Google for image' on one of them I got this BEAUTIFUL list, but it's not what you want.
pattern - Google Search

Thanks anyway. I tried to use emoticans from another website but they didn't work here.

 

[savagewind]

Thanks anyway. I tried to use emoticans from another website but they didn't work here.

How to Copy Animated Emoticons

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is far-fetched to believe in is that all the necessary ingredients are present to interact. If only one of them was missing we wouldn't be wasting our time on the internet because we wouldn't exist.

And so we wouldn't exist. What about any of that indicates the existence of god(s)?

 

[savagewind]

And so we wouldn't exist. What about any of that indicates the existence of god(s)?

A Plan. A plan requires a planner imo. Look at all the many ingredients! All that it takes for life to exist is present for life to exist. I call that a miracle. A miracle requires GOD.

I didn't start believing in God. I believe in God because I CAN'T believe in no god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A Plan. A plan requires a planner imo. Look at all the many ingredients! All that it takes for life to exist is present for life to exist. I call that a miracle. A miracle requires GOD.

I didn't start believing in God. I believe in God because I CAN'T believe in no god.

What plan?

 

[Jose Fly]

There is no distortion. Intelligent Design and an Intelligent Designer go hand in hand. Science to us, is the study of what the Creator made, not the study of how things changed once they mysteriously got here.

See, this is the problem right here. First you say that your religious beliefs don't distort your views on science, but you immediately follow that up by saying that you view all science through the lens of your religious beliefs.

If you don't see the contradiction there.....well, to be honest that's rather delusional.

If you cannot answer the basic question of how life began, what does it matter how it adapted?

It matters a lot. For example, evolutionary relationships between taxa are the means by which we figure out genetic functions. Figuring out how life adapts is how we develop vaccines and antibiotics.

"Most evolutionists are theists"? Theistic evolution is a compromise IMO. It seems to me like a way to save face rather than to have the courage of your convictions in the presence of a demeaning opponent. No one wants to look silly or uneducated.....yet those who believe in the Creator couldn't care less about appearing like ....

Either the Creator "created" just as he said he did, or he didn't. Genesis is not ambiguous so there is no room for "God used evolution". That is just nonsense.

What would change for you if you became an "evolutionist"? Do you think you'd be forced to become an atheist? Could you still be a JW?

If it disagrees with the Bible, then God is not the Creator. True science does NOT disagree with the Bible...evolution does.

You say this right after declaring that your religious beliefs don't distort your views on science. That's just downright delusional.

I do not see the theory of evolution as anything but what science suggests might have happened according to its biased interpretation of the "evidence".

Of course you do. You've wrapped yourself up in an emotionally safe circular logic bubble.

I can see for myself what science says about their evidence. I don't need a science degree to see that the whole theory is based on an assumption that cannot be validated.

You didn't answer the question. Again, how do you determine what science knows and what is assumed, if you don't read their papers or even understand their terminology?

No no no....I have not disparaged scientists per se.

Yes you have. You accused them of deliberately engaging in "smoke and mirrors" tactics to oversell their findings.

Why do I need to read up on how this symbiotic relationship "evolved" when I don't believe that it did?

There ya' go.....a perfect characterization of creationism. "I reject it out of belief, therefore I have no need to understand it".

So again we come across the question.....why do you feel compelled to try and argue against the science of evolutionary biology, when your position is 100% based on religion? Why not just say that you reject evolution because it contradicts what you believe to be the word of God and leave it at that?

You make the claim that it's true, so if its a fact, you should be able to prove it.

I already told you, the evolutionary explanations for symbiosis is not something I've read up on.

Read the replies on this thread and see how many proponents attribute evolution to "natural selection". All natural selection is, is adaptation. We do not deny adaptation as the evidence is there to support it.

So you can't cite a scientific paper that says "natural selection did it", even though you claimed scientists say that. I'm noticing a pattern with you....you're quite comfortable making claims and accusations against scientists, but as soon as someone asks you to substantiate them, you start shuffling around. Very telling.

But it takes place within a species.

The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Even most creationist organizations acknowledge that.

What the evidence does not do is demonstrate that a slow process of evolutionary change led from one "kind" of creature to another. That is a suggestion that cannot be proved.

No, because creationists can't really say what a "kind" is.

No its not that they don't get every detail in introductory material.....its that the detail they do get is misleading.
No one tells these kids that evolution isn't an established fact.

Um.....that populations evolve is an establish fact. We see it happen all the time, every single day. It's so trivially easy to see, it's a common lab experiment in introductory biology courses.

According to this source....
"....the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Perhaps you don't read something like that the way I do.....it seems like a complete contradiction. Being 'confident that the theory will not be overturned by new evidence' except where new areas of science may reveal that they were in error.

Really? This is science's definition of a fact?

The last time I checked, a 'prediction' was not a 'fact' until it was confirmed that it was true. That cannot happen in evolution because the fossils cannot speak. Science can give them a voice but its just like a ventriloquist mouthing its own interpretation of what a dead animals is telling them.

Your ignorance is showing.

First, as I said above, evolution is a fact. That we see it happen all the time makes it so. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how evolution (fact) occurs, e.g., the mechanisms that cause it and the pathways it has taken.

Second, if you notice, the NAS portion you quoted never said the theory of evolution is a fact. What they actually said is, "scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence". And that's true.

Surely you're not saying that just because you believe evolutionary theory can't be accurate, then scientists are not allowed to reach any conclusions about it, are you? I mean, we've already established that you no little to nothing about their actual work.

Can I suggest that the cap fits you equally. You critique a subject that you have no real knowledge of....and no interest in learning.

What subject is that?

Actually their first premise is based on that assumption.

How do you know?

Oh please, no one here is suggesting that you can compare science's technological achievements with its theory of evolution? You want me to pull out the watchmaker argument?

Yep, like most creationists you embrace science and its conclusions....right up until they conflict with your religious beliefs. Then you reject them out of hand. Like you said, why do you even need to understand it?

There is not one iota of evidence that what Dawkins has suggested isn't all purely speculative. The "gradual ramp of improvement" is entirely hypothetical.

Again, how do you know? You've stated that you don't read their work, you don't understand their jargon, and you don't see any need to even bother trying to do either since you don't believe it anyway. Yet here you are making authoritative declarations about their work.

That's just delusional.

Despite what maybe assumed here, I am not a total idiot. I do have a working brain and I can comprehend when someone is distinguishing between what he believes to be true and what actually is.

So when asked how you can reach conclusions about the work of scientists even though you don't know anything about it, your answer is "I have a brain".

That speaks for itself.

this is the basic argument between evolutionists and ID proponents....we each believe something is true and we each have, what is for us, valid reasons for those beliefs. You have teachers and so do we. But, you can't prove evolution any more than we can prove God. Its stalemate, not checkmate. No one wins in this argument.

Evolutionary theory has been the explanatory framework of the life sciences for over 100 years. Every scientific organization that's gone on record has unequivocally expressed their support of it. Every major university in the world teaches it. Every biotech firm utilizes it. It has led to entire new fields of research such as comparative genomics, which is how we figure out genetic functions.

Creationism OTOH has contributed nothing to our understanding of biology in at least 100 years. No scientific organization supports it. No major university teaches it or requires incoming students to be versed in it. No biotech firm uses it. Every scientific organization that's gone on record has unequivocally stated it to be religion, and not science.

To declare all that to be a "stalemate" is the height of delusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Most people can't understand the jargon in scientific journals so they turn to forums like this in the hope that people will speak about the subject in plain English.

Well that's the problem. Why in the world would anyone go looking to a religious forum for an explanation of science?

Should I go to science forums for explanations of theological issues?

Here you are, a scientist capable of explaining your position in plain English, and what have you contributed so far?...apart from "you don't understand"? And how ignorant our position is.

Because I've done this long enough to understand how it's folly to try and explain something to a group of people who refuse to believe it no matter what. In this thread you made it quite clear when you asked why you would need to bother understanding something (evolution of symbiosis) if you don't believe it in the first place.

I like the plain English myself because it's easy to show up the flaws that the jargon covers up. Science speaks its own language and it likes to pat itself on the back. Exposing their uncovered backsides can be very enlightening.

See, here you are again disparaging scientists and their work.....even though you know nothing about it.

I think you underestimate the intentions of those who genuinely want to know the truth. Only in forums like this will they get both sides of this story.....and then they can make up their own minds. Is that not fair? Will they get a fair evaluation of the real evidence (or lack of it) from the sources you suggest?

I agree, and that's one of the reasons I'm here. The posts and behavior of creationists here speak for themselves.